Re: Why they hate us, was (Re: funny things to do on a bike)

[Jay Beattie]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

<snip>

> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency
Physicians
> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be
sprayed
> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter
2001
> newsletter:
>
> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf

I would regard with great suspicion anything said by the Oregon
Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. I think
they were one of the groups behind the MHL for kids in this
state! They are terrorists themselves! -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Chalo]

"Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> wrote;
>
> I
> claimed that lives lost now (on both sides) will save many more lives in the
> future (on both sides). I thought it might be interesting to discuss in the
> context of terrorism vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> differentaiting.

"Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation of
all recognized laws of war. It is recursive logic as well as
ethically insupportable to suggest that because another could
potentially do something to you, that you should do the same thing to
them as a preventive.

> Isn't a
> fundamental underpinning of war the concept that the lives of my countrymen
> are worth more than the lives of yours? That certainly has been true
> throughout history.

It is the basic fallacy underlying all war, and like the fallacies
underlying slavery, it must be abandoned if human consciousness is to
continue development.

Chalo Colina

--


Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall
not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,
and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom.
For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to
you again.

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> Based on a known starting point of at least 85,000 shells (based on
> >> what Iraq admits), that's a pretty high order of precision. Even if
> >> you are right, and there is "only" about 12 gallons of sarin, that's
> >> VERY significant. That's enough to kill enough people to make 9/11
> >> look like a warm up.
> >
> >100% ********. Oh, if they all lined up, and you were allowed to
> >administer the stuff to each person...
> >
> >In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.
>
> One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.
>
> You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
> over a crowd? I can think of dozens.

Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
doing it.

Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
about it as you seem to think you do.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

"James Calivar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

[snip]

> > Jonesy "research chemist (formerly with DoD) when not riding a bike."
>
> Big deal. You roll out a quote about the cube of distance and then claim
> you're a scientist - big fat deal!

Obviously you're not, or you'd look like you actually made a point.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> You are in denial
> >> >> or don't know the facts about sarin.
> >> >
> >> >LOL. Irony.
> >>
> >> Want to try one little drop on your skin to check the facts I
> >> presented? Shouldn't be a problem, right?
> >
> >Your facts are not in error. Your understanding and comprehension of
> >how those facts fit the bigger picture are what are in error.
> >
> >Hope that clarifies.
>
> OK, let's find out where I'm missing the "big picture"... tell me
> which of the following is not true...
>
> 1) One drop of sarin on your skin can kill you (that seems to be OK).

Not in dispute by anyone. Uh, it does have to be of a recent vintage
- the stuff has a shelf life.

> 2) Sarin is a liquid (don't think there's a problem with that)

Yes.

> 3) There are lots of ways to convert liquids to a fine mist or
> droplets (let's hope you don't deny that).

Depends on the liquid in question. Take dish soap, for instance. It
is really hard to make a mist of the straight stuff. Almost
impossible, in fact.

> 4) The methods used in #3 applied to large crowds would disperse
> droplets of liquid over many in the crowd.
>
> So which one of those is in error?

Depends on the liquid, its carrier (if in a solvent of some sort) and
the nature of the pattern of spray or dispersal.

It's just not as easy as you imagine.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Like in a crowded subway? Ooops, that's already been done. Aum
> >> >Shinriko killed exactly 12 people using approximately that amount of
> >> >Sarin. Your knowledge of Sarin, it's application, and its effects is
> >> >woeful. Stick to bicycles, and leave biochemistry to those who
> >> >actually know something about it.
> >>
> >> You should probably read up on sarin, and on the Shinriko attack.
> >
> >I know plenty about both. Except I overstated the number killed. The
> >number is actually 7.
> >
> >While the delivery system was poorly-designed, it points out a very
> >significant difficulty using sarin as a terror weapon - it's viscosity
> >does not lend itself well to aerosol application. In addition, unless
> >you get it directly on you, your chances of becoming injured or killed
> >go way down. Not only that, even aerosolized sarin hydrolyzes quite
> >quickly. Good for use when you want to occupy that territory with
> >your troops the next day (or thereabouts.)
>
> It only has to stay active for a minute or two to be deadly to a
> crowd.

You still have the problem of aerosolizing an oily, viscous liquid.
Even with a carrier, it's not as easy as you imagine.

> >> So 'splain to me what part of my concern about the danger of a gallon
> >> of sarin is "hyperbole", please.
> >
> >See above. You comprehension of the subject is poor, and your
> >understanding of the physical properties of the substance is nil.
>
> OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
> at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.appb.pdf
>
> ... discussing the solubility of sarin...
>
> "Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"

Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
then try and smuggle it under your coat.

> "Infinitely soluble in water at 20 degrees C"

Not really a desireable solvent - the stuff breaks down in the
presence of water.

> "Readily soluble in fats, lipids, and all other organice solvents"

A reiteration of the first quote, just more specific.

> Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
> viscosity.

Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.

If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
idiot.

> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
> newsletter:
>
> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf

Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?

Chicken Little holding on line two...

> >> >Your hyperbole is just another example of an apologist attitude when
> >> >it comes to the current Administration. I'll ask again - what
> >> >mistakes have GWB and his minions made?
> >>
> >> They've made mistakes, no doubt.
> >
> >Not a very specific list. And even the one thing you do bring up is
> >laughably apologetic. Do the strings bother you much?
>
> I don't really feel the need to create a list.

Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
rational discussion.

> >> But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
> >> nothing.
> >
> >Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
> >military know this.
>
> Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
> this.

Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote...
>
> >Let me quote you:
> >
> >"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
> >not
> >forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
> >(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
> >won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."
> >
> >You didn't say "fact", you said "something."
>
> I said both, actually...

This is a refutation, how?

> >Even when Rush states
> >facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
> >audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
> >listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
> >they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
> >implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
> >exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
> >must be So(tm).
>
> Your logic escapes me. I said what I said, nothing more.

You claimed to say one thing, but said another. Clear enough?

> Did I imply that Rush is likely to state *facts* that Dan Rather
> won't? You bet I did (I doubt you'd bother to try to deny that).

I do not deny the implication, but I do not believe it is correct.
Rush is not a news source, but an entertainer. He has very little
credibility as a source of facts, because it's sometimes difficult to
separate his facts from his opinion. Facts are facts - if Rush states
them or Dan Rather states them. Suggesting that somehow Dan Rather
doesn't state certain facts requires you to prove that assertion.

> I
> was not implying that the statement of facts was mutually exclusive to
> one (or the other), but that Rush brings up information you won't get
> from Dan Rather (and vice versa).

Hogwash. The thing you get from Rush that you don't get with Dan is a
conservative, opinionated spin on the available facts. You should
listen more often, so that you have the clue you are clearly in need
of.

> >If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
> >it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
> >that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
> >Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
> >and not true in the least.
>
> Sigh... if it makes you feel better, change "probably" to "often" in
> my statement.

It still doesn't make the statement true. You'll have to provide a
whole bunch of examples, or else is just more dittohead blather on
your part.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> OK then - you should have NO problem citing all the many, many, many
> >> ways the administration "implied" that there is a connection.
> >
> >From the luna.org site, Bush and his minions equated or linked al
> >Qaeda to Iraq or Saddam many times. Let's see if you can follow this
> >huge leap of logic:
> >
> >1.) Al Qaeda took down the WTC.
> >
> >2.) Saddam/Iraq is in bed with al Qaeda, thus
> >
> >3.) Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> >
> >Wow, I guess it's just my superior intellect that can connect the dots
> >like that, huh? And GWB would *never* try to link the two if it
> >weren't true, right? Don't mind the fact that he had it in for Saddam
> >and Iraq since he arrived in the Oval Office (see Paul O'Neill's book
> >for confirmation of that.) No, it's not convenient at all to link
> >Saddam with al Qaeda, because nobody would ever infer any kind of
> >connection between Saddam and 9/11, right?
>
> Your logic is amazing. You're implying that it's impossible to
> discuss ties between Al Qaeda and state support without somehow
> subliminally suggesting that it HAS to mean that every group that's
> supported Al Qaeda was directly involved in the 9/11 attack. Wow.

It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
and the fact that the connection has been denied since.

> And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
> your point.

By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)

> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq

There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

> >Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
> >keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
> >actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.
>
> In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
> tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.

Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
implication.

> >> >LOL - you head-in-the-sand (-up-the-ass) conservatives really give me
> >> >a chuckle.
> >>
> >> I'm glad. I'm chuckling over the fact you won't be able to give any
> >> citations.
> >
> >Being a pedantic asshole doesn't improve your logic.
>
> Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the best proof that you've lost.

It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
different things.

While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

> >> On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
> >> the facts) that there IS a connection.
> >
> >THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
> >Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
> >the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
> >building.
> >
> >> Personally I wouldn't doubt
> >> it
> >
> >Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
> >conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
> >have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
> >"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.
>
> Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there

So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
connection?

[snip Liebermann quote]

If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
make it true? Is it a fact then?

:shakes head:

--
Jonesy

 

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> >Lead does not burn to a powdery ash when used as directed, even in
> >ordnance. It's tough to accidentally inhale or ingest a chunk of
> >lead. Uranium doesn't leave chunks when it's used as projectiles--
> >mainly dust and vapor.
>
> What!!?? Chalo, I think you're very, very mistaken.
>
> I'm certainly no expert on DU projectiles, but it stands to reason
> that you don't choose a material that turns to "dust and vapor" for
> armor piercing rounds. The projectile HAS to stay intact through
> layers of armor to do any damage to what's on the other side.

I didn't say that the stuff didn't penetrate armor. I said that what
remained was dust and vapor. Remember, this metal ignites
spontaneously even in large chunks at 1472 degrees F, and burns until
it is suffocated or consumed. The energy transferred to a DU
projectile on impact at thousands of feet per second is more than
sufficient to ignite the metal. It goes into an armored plate as a
solid penetrator, but it comes out the other side as shrapnel and
hellfire, which makes it a very effective killing tool. Trouble is
that the ash left over makes people sick and gives them cancer, and
can't just be pitched into a garbage truck and taken away.

Chalo Colina

 

[Kyle.B.H]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> wrote;
> >
> > I
> > claimed that lives lost now (on both sides) will save many more lives in
the
> > future (on both sides). I thought it might be interesting to discuss in
the
> > context of terrorism vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> > differentaiting.
>
> "Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation of
> all recognized laws of war.

That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation need not wait
until an enemy attacks to defend itself.

It is recursive logic as well as
> ethically insupportable to suggest that because another could
> potentially do something to you, that you should do the same thing to
> them as a preventive.

Not that they could potentially, but that they intend to...big difference.
Well then in answer to my question (which you again snipped out of your
reply and failed to answer) ... "If I were pointing a gun to your head,
wouldn't you shoot me first if you had the opportunity?"

The answer is that you are a true pacifist, and that ultimately you'll only
have to answer to Darwin. Our discussion must end here as you would
obviously rather die than defend youself or your country. We're just going
to continue in circles.

> > Isn't a
> > fundamental underpinning of war the concept that the lives of my
countrymen
> > are worth more than the lives of yours? That certainly has been true
> > throughout history.
>
> It is the basic fallacy underlying all war, and like the fallacies
> underlying slavery, it must be abandoned if human consciousness is to
> continue development.

In your utopian vision, that would be great. But until the safety of my
family and my country is secure from those who wish to destroy us (for no
reason except that I'm an 'infidel'), it ain't gonna happen.

Kyle

 

[Charlie C.]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in news:40b89146.16766681
@news.individual.net:

> 18 May 2004 03:09:32 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>
>>You want to find WMDs over there? The thousands of cluster bombs US
>>airplanes scattered over civilian villages in Iraq are weapons of mass
>>destruction. They're doing a bang-up job, so to speak, of killing
>>children and/or avulsing off their limbs.
>
> DU is the deadlier legacy.
>
> The amount of depleted uranium used by coalition forces in the two
> Gulf Wars is not known, but some estimates suggest it was 300 tons in
> 1991 and five times as much last year.
>

This is also an issue in Bosnia as well. If you're gonna lay blame, then
pass it around to all who deserve it.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Well, it *is* a WMD.

I've long been a little dissatisfied about that phrase or acronym. The
US has many, many weapons that can destroy much bigger "masses." And
what we've done in Iraq certainly qualifies as mass destruction.

Seems to me the meaning of the phrase is really "A weapon we don't allow
them to have (whether or not we have it)."

Not that I want (or wanted) Iraq or anyone else to have tons of high
explosives, nuclear weapons, sarin or mustard gas or anything else. But
it does sound like the shorthand being used ought to be followed by
"wink, wink."


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>>
>It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
>What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
>that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
>and the fact that the connection has been denied since.

Denied since... when? I don't recall the administration denying the
link, since they never established it. I thought we had nailed that
down... guess not.

>> And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
>> your point.
>
>By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
>credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced? We end up with him painting one picture
of the administration, and the rest of the administration saying that
it's entirely inaccurate. We'll never know I suppose - but he DID
make a lot of money (a lot more than he would have had there been no
drama in the book).

>> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq
>
>There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
>for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
>that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
I tend to believe the accounts that have come from the rest of the
cabinet members (which all seem to agree).

>> >Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
>> >keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
>> >actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.
>>
>> In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
>> tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.
>
>Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
>a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
>implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out. Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection. Or was it done through
subliminals or maybe hypnotism?

>> >> >LOL - you head-in-the-sand (-up-the-ass) conservatives really give me
>> >> >a chuckle.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad. I'm chuckling over the fact you won't be able to give any
>> >> citations.
>> >
>> >Being a pedantic asshole doesn't improve your logic.
>>
>> Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the best proof that you've lost.
>
>It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
>different things.

Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

>While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
>obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
>means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
>suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

>> >> On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
>> >> the facts) that there IS a connection.
>> >
>> >THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
>> >Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
>> >the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
>> >building.
>> >
>> >> Personally I wouldn't doubt
>> >> it
>> >
>> >Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
>> >conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
>> >have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
>> >"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.
>>
>> Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there
>
>So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
>connection?

Heh heh heh... NOW how are you going to reconcile THAT with your
position that GWB was doing his best to imply there WAS a connection?
You're digging another hole here.

>[snip Liebermann quote]
>
>If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
>Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
>make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen. Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

>:shakes head:

Laughs.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> [email protected] (JP) writes:
>
>
>>Hussein did not have artillery capable of reaching the US (nor does
>>anyone else) so this shell could not have been a threat to us in the
>>USA.
>
>
> Canada?

Please, don't let W hear that! There's no telling what ideas it might
inspire!


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote

>> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency
>Physicians
>> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be
>sprayed
>> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter
>2001
>> newsletter:
>>
>> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf
>
>I would regard with great suspicion anything said by the Oregon
>Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. I think
>they were one of the groups behind the MHL for kids in this
>state! They are terrorists themselves! -- Jay Beattie.

Hey - let's not have any bicycle content in this thread!!!

(I won't even mention the H-word)... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>
> Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
> subway?
>

Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>> OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
>> at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.appb.pdf
>>
>> ... discussing the solubility of sarin...
>>
>> "Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"
>
>Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
>then try and smuggle it under your coat.

I don't recall the need to bodily carry it to its dispersal point, but
even so it's not that hard to imagine (or maybe just send out four
people with a quart of sarin each).

<snip>
>> Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
>> viscosity.
>
>Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
>volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.
>
>If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
>idiot.

I missed the part where I said no one had ever looked at that. You
seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
their lips or keyboards...

>> In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
>> discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
>> from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
>> newsletter:
>>
>> http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf
>
>Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
>designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?
>
>Chicken Little holding on line two...

Talk to the doctors involved. I'm sure they are all total idiots too.

>> I don't really feel the need to create a list.
>
>Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
>conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
>acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
>rational discussion.

Hmmm. There you go again. Care to point out where I said
conservatives don't make mistakes? Would it be rude of me to point
out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
reading comprehension. I think perhaps that has something to do with
your problem with some of the things GWB "said".

>> >> But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
>> >> nothing.
>> >
>> >Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
>> >military know this.
>>
>> Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
>> this.
>
>Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
>application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
>Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.

Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
>> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>> >In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.
>>
>> One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.
>>
>> You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
>> over a crowd? I can think of dozens.
>
>Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
>doing it.
>
>Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
>(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
>regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
>about it as you seem to think you do.

Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin. Maybe you could
fill us all in on where they might go about picking up a few gallons
of the stuff, other than from a state-sponsored lab (directly or
indirectly).

The fact they haven't used it as a weapon yet doesn't prove anything
any more than the fact no one had flown airliners into skyscrapers did
prior to 9/11, even though it was obviously possible.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

>It's just amazing the outrages you will accept as long as the
>misfortune is somebody else's.

Chalo, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. If DU is nasty stuff,
it is NOT a political issue (since it's been used by the military
across multiple administrations). The reading I have done on it
suggests that it's no more dangerous than lead projectiles.

Maybe, maybe not - but it is kind of ironic that I'm replying in
threads which state that spent bullets are dangerous, but sarin
isn't... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:

>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>

>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
>> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>
>
> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
> paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
absolutely impossible to follow.

>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>> less taxes?
>>
>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>
> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
> course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.

Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.

> I have no
> idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

You seem to admire the latter. Fine. But I don't think my kids and
grandkids should be facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
> guvmint if one does not have to.

If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
to murder.

That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
>> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>
> My inclination is *not* to do so...

I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
>> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
>> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
>> give any of their money to the community.
>
>
> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
> there

Absolutely false.

>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>>
>>
>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>
>
> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

Sorry, but I am not a socialist. You are once again jumping to
unwarranted conclusions.

It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
little for you.

Buzz off.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]