babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » 5000 US smart bombs for Israel ......

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 5000 US smart bombs for Israel ......
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 28 September 2004 10:46 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
US to sell 5000 smart bombs to Israel

alJazeera.net speculate that these bunker buster bombs could be used against the Palestinians, but somehow I think it is more credible that they intend to us them against the Iranian nuke facilities.

Of course it could also be intended to put pressure on the Iranian ayatollahs to cease and desist from continuing with their nuke building plans, but I suspect that the Iranians have gone too far to reverse their plans for a nuke deterrent and untouchability.

The Iranians want and need nukes so they become untouchable like the NKoreans and Pakistanis. The US pressure to overthrow them is also driving them to acquire and test several nukes, thus reinforcing their control on the country and region. From this position of power, the Iranians can help their Shiite compatriots in Iraq and extend their sphere of influence into Iraq without fear of US retaliation.

Saddam was deposed essentially to stop him from acquiring NKorean or Chinese nukes under the protection of his European patrons in France, Germany, Russia and even Canada, to whom he extended exclusive oil development contracts in Iraq. If Saddam was able to acquire nukes, he would have become untouchable and a destabilizing threat to the entire Arabian peninsula. The US and Israel could not allow this to happen so the preemptive strike was taken to not only depose Saddam but to also keep out the French, German and others. If this had not been done, the US oil companies would eventually have been displaced from the Middle East and the Saudi regime would have collapsed.

The Israelis knew this and convinced Bush to strike fast before Saddam fell under the umbrella protection of the French and other friends. If the US refused, the Israelis would have been forced to preemptively nuke Baghdad resulting in the loss of the entire Middle East oil supply. That would have been disasterous.

Now it is inevitable that the Iranian fundamentalist regime must be defanged or even removed to bring the entire Middle East under the control of the USA and pacified. That is how a Superpower uses it's might to establish it's influence worldwide. Basically nobody can stop them. Since Chinese and US interest coincide, I expect the Chinese will take care of the NKorean nuclear threat to SKorea, Japan and even the US, but at a price. The Communist Chinese are no fools and know how to deal with the Americans.

Some are predicting that Israel under the guidance and support of the US, will attack the Iranian Bushear nuclear facilities after Bush wins the elections in November. If Kerry wins, he will have no option but to support an Israeli attack on Iran and continue the Bush Doctrine.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 29 September 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, like Bush is the only American president to ever support Israel.

Russia/China will sell Iran weapons anyways. Oops, they already did.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 29 September 2004 01:40 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Smart bombs, are they not the one's with intelligence that can be trained to self destruct on reaching the intended target?
A technological suicide bomber. What are we to call that? Would that be a terrorist too?

From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 29 September 2004 08:20 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anybody know just how effective these "bunker-buster" bombs are at, in fact, busting bunkers?
Just because you put a name tag on something doesn't mean it really does what the name tag says. It may be they'll use them for demolishing buildings, occasionally saying when it gets in the news "Well, yes, we demolished the building. But we were using a *bunker-buster*, see, the aim was to collapse the evil weapon-smuggler tunnels we're *quite sure* were under that building. The building was just unfortunate collateral damage."
Then everyone will be happy, except the Palestinian family that got blown up, and as anyone with Fox or CanWest Global will tell you, they don't really matter because they're just local colour, not real people.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 29 September 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster.htm


This web side might give you an idea of its potential.

bunker buster


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 29 September 2004 10:06 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
Jeez, what are the Jews gonna do with 5000 bunker busting smart bombs?!

If they intend to use some of them to knock out the Iranian Bushear nuclear facilities and nuke factories, I would think that a thousand would be enough, assuming that they could deliver that many into Iran.

What do they intend to do with the remaining 4000 bombs, blow up all the Palestinians and Syrians too?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 September 2004 10:28 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you still allowed to post? I think I'll ask Michelle that, actually.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 September 2004 10:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The Jews"?

Watch it, Sinistral.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 30 September 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
In this case Sinistral is probably correct, I suspect that non jews would not be allowed to use or have these BB bombs in Israel.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At the same time, however, Sinistral's wording is. charitably, quite sloppy. At worst, it was a deliberate slur.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 30 September 2004 12:34 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I agree.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 30 September 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unless for some reason Islamic Israelis have somehow gained control of the Israeli Army and are in possession of the smart bombs, I see no problem in what he said. It's not derogatory, the Jews of Israel are in possession of these weapons.

It's just PC to say Israelis. For what it's worth, I'll direct some Jewish friends of mine to this and see if they're offended by the assumption that Israelis in control of the army are Jewish.

Standby


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 30 September 2004 01:50 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The above is one of those politically correct issues that I don't quite understand.

If Israel is a "Jewish State", why is it a slur to call its people "Jews".


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 01:51 AM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
"The Jews"?

Watch it, Sinistral.


Watch what? It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

JEW noun 1 A member of the Hebrew or Jewish people. 2 Any person professing the religion of Judah. 3 Originally, a member of the tribe of the Kingdom of Judah.

e.g. ... the history of the Jews .... the suffering of the Jews .... the Jews of Israel ....


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 September 2004 09:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In case no one has noticed, all of "the Jews" don't live in Israel. Therefore, "the Jews" don't have smart bombs - Israel does. I think it would surprise a few Jewish babblers to hear that THEY were suddenly armed with smart bombs, or part of one great monolith of Jews worldwide.

And I don't think anyone would have any trouble seeing what was problematic about someone commenting on Iran and saying, "The Muslims are now armed with nukes!" even though 99% of Iranians are Muslim.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 30 September 2004 10:01 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is unacceptable to talk about "the Jews", "the Muslims", "the Arabs" or "the Blacks" etc to decry the actions of a State.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 30 September 2004 10:05 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Turns out they might not just bust bunkers.

Bunker buster decease


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I'm happy to echo lagatta: it is unacceptable.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 30 September 2004 10:18 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside from the lingo (I'm Jewish and not particularly offended) is it not a good thing that the Iranian nuke facilities get taken out? It's fairly well known that Israel's had nuclear weapons since approximately 1968, and they've never been used.

Can anyone accurately forecast that Iran wouldn't use the weapons if given a chance?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: JBG ]


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can anyone accurately forecast that Iran wouldn't use the weapons if given a chance?

Israel has never declared a "no first use" policy. Why should we trust them?

If we are to demand other states in the region do not produce nuclear weapons perhaps we should first demand those with them give them up. If Israel has no intent of using them, they don't need them do they?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 30 September 2004 10:31 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can anyone see a situation arising in which these weapons would be used against the Palestinians? What do the Palestinians have that require such a large amount of smart / bunker busting bombs?
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 30 September 2004 10:37 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut,I will second that.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Bubbles ]


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 30 September 2004 12:15 PM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JBG:
Aside from the lingo (I'm Jewish and not particularly offended) is it not a good thing that the Iranian nuke facilities get taken out? It's fairly well known that Israel's had nuclear weapons since approximately 1968, and they've never been used.

Can anyone accurately forecast that Iran wouldn't use the weapons if given a chance?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: JBG ]


I'll have to agree with you because your yellow background takes the cake.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 12:26 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
Neither have the Israeli Jews acknowledged they possess over 200 atomic and several thermonuclear bombs. Their problem with this Doomsday arsenal is that they do not have the military capability to surgically bomb out and destroy the heavily bunkered Iranian nuke factory facilities.

Since it is inevitable that the Israeli Jews must destroy the Bushear nuclear station and the associated nuke building factories rather soon, it was incumbent on the US to provide them with non-nuclear bunker busting smart bombs to do the job.

My prediction is that the bombs will fall on Iran after the US elections, and everybody expects Bush to win. Also expect Middle East oil supplies to be interrupted and Arabian light sweet crude to go for $100 US / bbl, if you can get it. Also expect gasoline prices to skyrocket and the gas station posted prices to go from 99.9¢ / litre to 101¢, 105¢, 115¢ / litre. SUV (Stupid Useless Vehicle) owners will be force to deny their children the necessities of life, to keep their pride and joy running. Also expect gasoline rationing .... where did peace and prosperity in our time go??!!

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
It is unacceptable to talk about "the Jews", "the Muslims", "the Arabs" or "the Blacks" etc to decry the actions of a State.

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
And I'm happy to echo lagatta: it is unacceptable.

I too agree, it is unacceptable.

Why does socialism require political correctness to survive?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 September 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not "political correctness" to expect people not to make generalizations about an entire group based on their religion.

Or, if it IS "political correctness", then it's not a bad thing.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
But what if the majority of those ethnic, racial and/or religious groups support the despicable actions of their state government? Would it then be pc to castigate them? Just asking.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you poll them?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 September 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Why are you arguing this point? You were told it was unacceptable, and frankly, it's really boring and pointless to see you continue making this an issue.

In any case, unless you have proof beyond a doubt that a majority of a particular group support a specific belief or action implied in a generalisation, it has the potential of being baseless and bigoted.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 30 September 2004 01:19 PM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Did you poll them?

I'd bank that more Jews are in favour of supporting Israel as opposed to Iran and other Islamic-majority countries.

Of course I don't have documentation to back this up, because nobody would poll a Jewish population (whether it be in North America, Europe, Israel etc...) asking them whether they support Israel or the rest of the ME.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, dear, a reading problem, eh?

Here, more slowly:

quote:
But
what
if
the
majority
of
those
ethnic,
racial and/or religious groups
support
the despicable actions
of their state government?

So, do the majority of the citizens of Israel support their government's possession, and potential use, of nuclear weapons?

That would be the question.

If you are still having problems following this, please let me know and I will be glad to type even slower.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 September 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if
This colour

Will work too?
How about this one?

Edited to add:
Dang. How come yellow works and purple doesn't?

Further edited:
OK, so red will work.
Evidently there are evil anti-purple bigots involved in the markup design.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 30 September 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Crap. Couldn't get it to work, either.

Too bad. It looked as if the ME forum might have actually made an interesting contribution.

It'd be fun to highlight parts of our text in different colours at times, as a change of pace from bold and italics.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
Simple Question for all:

Upon whom are the Israelis going to drop these 5000 bunker-busting smart bombs???


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 September 2004 04:46 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
If I told you, I'd have to kill you.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 30 September 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Oh! Only certain colours work! But not all are good for highlighting.

Yellow works

Red works

Blue works

Green works


range">Orange?


Can't get orange to work

Cyan works

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 30 September 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sinistral:
Simple Question for all:

Upon whom are the Israelis going to drop these 5000 bunker-busting smart bombs???


Ordinance doesn't always have a "destination" marked on it. The greatest job of most military hardware (most actually becomes 'defunct' before it is used) is to threaten anyone and everyone. It's a diplomatic tool as much as a military one.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 30 September 2004 04:56 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sinistral:

I too agree, it is unacceptable.

Why does socialism require political correctness to survive?


All political regimes (left and right) have their 'dialects' in as much as they all make a claim to order and catagorize "reality". All political ideologies enforce the acceptance of a series of "correct" and "incorrect" assertions.

With "socialism" we are contending (usually) with an ideology which seeks to overthrow the status quo and to replace it with a new set of assumptions - i.e. correct and incorrect ways of speaking/thinking. "Political correctness" as it has come to be called, is the result of trying to actualise concepts such as "equity", "equality" and "fairness" in the psycho-linguistic sphere. What's wrong with that?

I guess the question I would ask you is this: what is the political difference saying "black person" and "nigger?" Do you suggest that "nigger" is an acceptable word as opposed to "black person". Why or why not?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 06:25 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
Secret Forum Message:

Would you be shocked to learn that there are strange and gayful people posting on this forum?!

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sinistral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6087

posted 30 September 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for Sinistral        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
What's wrong with that [pc]?

I guess the question I would ask you is this: what is the political difference saying "black person" and "nigger?" Do you suggest that "nigger" is an acceptable word as opposed to "black person". Why or why not?


Nothing wrong with that, as long as we appreciate that pc is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.

As for the propriety of "black" and "n****r", may I remind you that it is entirely acceptable to use the latter if you are "black" yourself. Which gets us into the area of semantics and linguistics. Interestingly, it was explained to me that in most Slavic languages, to call somebody "black" is to call their "soul" black or evil, while the n-word is quite generic and innocent.

I guess it all depend where you are coming from religiously and the colour of your skin.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 September 2004 08:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Interestingly, it was explained to me that in most Slavic languages, to call somebody "black" is to call their "soul" black or evil, while the n-word is quite generic and innocent.

According to whom?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 30 September 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited to reduce the amount of troll food in this place.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 30 September 2004 10:51 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sinistral:
Secret Forum Message:

Would you be shocked to learn that there are strange and gayful people posting on this forum?!

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Sinistral ]


If you hit the "quote" key on this message, you can read what's in the black strip. It's sufficiently strange and childish that I doubt she wrote it. Sinistral, do you have a younger sibling?


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 October 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, you can see under the black strip by dragging the cursor over the lines, as one does when highlighting for a cut-and paste.

BTW, that "Black"/"N-word" comparison doesn't quite cut it in this instance.

"Jew" isn't derogatory, and Zionists claim that Israel is a "Jewish State."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Mundy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6576

posted 01 October 2004 02:38 AM      Profile for Patrick Mundy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Oh, dear, a reading problem, eh?

Here, more slowly:

So, do the majority of the citizens of Israel support their government's possession, and potential use, of nuclear weapons?

That would be the question.

If you are still having problems following this, please let me know and I will be glad to type even slower.


Congratulations, you failed to address nothing except that I made a reading error.

I bet you still get wet when someone spells the wrong there, their, or they're


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2004 09:41 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Congratulations, you failed to address nothing
Well then double congratulations becuase neither have you. But do tell me, why would I adress a "reading error." Either you can comprhend, or you can't. And what has been your overall contribution to this thread? Hmmmm?

To ask me if I get wet? Oh, you are too bright and biting for me. Please leave me alone .... please!.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 01 October 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sinistral:
[QB]Secret Forum Message:

Would you be shocked to learn that there are strange and gayful people posting on this forum?!


Secret message reproduced above.


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 01 October 2004 10:09 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
In any case, unless you have proof beyond a doubt that a majority of a particular group support a specific belief or action implied in a generalisation, it has the potential of being baseless and bigoted.

A proof is a proof. What is a proof?


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 01 October 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

If we are to demand other states in the region do not produce nuclear weapons perhaps we should first demand those with them give them up. If Israel has no intent of using them, they don't need them do they?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]



The very nature of nukes is that they're a "defensive" weapon. Since the use of nukes would make life difficult for geographically close nations to the site of use, Israel would not use them unless it had no other way to weather an Arab attack. Thus, Israel has a legitimate need for nukes. Other than having an aggressive policy Iran has no reason to fear attack.


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 October 2004 11:20 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very nature of nukes is that they're a "defensive" weapon. Since the use of nukes would make life difficult for geographically close nations to the site of use, Israel would not use them unless it had no other way to weather an Arab attack. Thus, Israel has a legitimate need for nukes.

I'd like 'spot the contradiction' for 800, Alex.

Does this not mean that everyone should have nukes, to protect themselves from outside aggressors? That the region will be more peaceful once Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and yeah even Iraq have a few dozen nukes each? That countries with nuclear weapons should be free from the scourge of war?*

*I don't subscribed to this flawed logic. I'm just trying to comprehend it.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
kukuchai
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6215

posted 01 October 2004 11:44 AM      Profile for kukuchai        Edit/Delete Post
Uh uh, sorry. The fallout from using nukes would not be limited to countries in geographic proximity. The stuff goes up into the atmosphere and from there is taken right around the world, to fall on even your head.

Remember Chernobyl? A few days or a week after that disaster we received an advisory, in Canada, to not allow our children to play in mud puddles, since the fallout travelled around the world, and when it fell it tended to concentrate in standing bodies of water.

Nice.

The Laplanders had a huge kill-off of reindeer as well.

Nukes are for idiots.

Uranium should be left in the ground and never, ever tampered with.

Nukes as a deterrent is funny too. That's why the USA is using depleted uranium bombs in Iraq. It's a slow, painful genocide. The rate of leukemia has risen drastically and the stuff being scattered around the desert won't just stay there. It is being wafted by air currents and distributed around the world, as we speak.

Nukes are for fools and idiots. Big boys and their toys.

And there is no such thing as a "smart bomb". That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one; kind of like "military intelligence" -- doesn't exist.

Nothing smart about a bomb that can cause indiscriminate destruction.

By the way, what is happening to the Palestinians and to the Iraqis is genocide, plain and simple. And it makes me sick.


From: Earth | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 October 2004 12:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very nature of nukes is that they're a "defensive" weapon. Since the use of nukes would make life difficult for geographically close nations to the site of use, Israel would not use them unless it had no other way to weather an Arab attack. Thus, Israel has a legitimate need for nukes. Other than having an aggressive policy Iran has no reason to fear attack.

So. Nukes are defensive, therfore Iran having them is not problem, because they can not use them as part of an agressive policy.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The very nature of nukes is that they're a "defensive" weapon. Since the use of nukes would make life difficult for geographically close nations to the site of use, Israel would not use them unless it had no other way to weather an Arab attack. Thus, Israel has a legitimate need for nukes. Other than having an aggressive policy Iran has no reason to fear attack.

Here at babble, we deal only in 100% pure bullshit. Dont be fooled by imitations or so-called "alternative" bullshit. Come to babble where it is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

Only pure bullshit could produce the above quote in a public forum without fear of riducle or abuse.

Buy our bullshit and let logic sip away.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca