Dirty Bomb or Dirty lie?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by raid517, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. flaherrc

    flaherrc New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that is a very dangerous mindset to be in. That is the second time in this thread you have said something of this nature.

    Unfortunately, many terrorists have exploited the education systems in both the US and the UK. The biochemist I referred to earlier working in Iraq under Sadam's regiem actually graduated from the University of Missouri in Columbia (my wife's alma matter). The terrorists who hijacked four airlines from east coast airports were bright individuals who sought training at US schools. Terrorists do reconnisance, analyze traffic patterns, pedestrian traffic, cameras and security gaurds. You don't believe when a suicide bomber runs into a disco in Israel that it is a random act, do you? Those things are planned by someone with some smarts and training - as twisted it may be.

    Just because they are fanatical toward religion does not mean they are not educated. And to think there are no educated persons, ones that possess both knowledge for nukes or biological warfare, who believe that the Western civilization and all its evils need to be destroyed is dangerous and naive.

    Do you actually believe that terrorism does not exist as Michael Moore states in his movie? That it is merely pumped up by governments to keep people in order? Tell that to the families of the 3000+ people who died on September 11. Tell that to the hundreds of mothers and fathers in Russia who lost their children because they went to school one day. Tell that to the hundreds of families who have lost loved ones over the decades of violence in Israel. Tell that to the victim's and families of the DC Sniper or those lost in OK City.

    Maybe because terrorism kills less people than flu does in one year that it is a small threat. But it does exist. And smart people are terrorists too.

    bob
     
  2. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I heard some stuff from nuclear scientists saying that a dirty bomb is acutally hamrless (at least the radiation spilt from them) and that USA, Russia and all did testing on it as a weapon but discarded the idea cuz it was totally useless....

    And who here still thinks russia is evil? :annoyed: What is wrong with you? Seriously, no country is evil. Good and bad does not exist! Nothing is that crystal clear! :rolleyes:
     
  3. CaptinSxb

    CaptinSxb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was it not one of the iraqi officials that used a bio agent to kill 400,000 people in his own country? But i guess it was just a fluke and he managed to get it right on the first try and didnt record any of that work that he did and didnt getfunding from his government, right?

    You say you need comlex handling devices? Would that be sorta like that people that strap bombs to themselves thinking that when they die they get 72 virgins in heaven?

    Raid your looking at this as if we are dealing with some highly civilizied country that is going to get all these things through legal channels. Try thinking of it as if you spent your whole life growing up to hate a specifc gender/race/country and being told that there is no greater honor than to kill someone from that group. No to mention your family will be raped and tortured if you refuse.
     
  4. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Iraqi bio chemist you refer to was certainly involved in producing and designing biological and chemical weapons (at least we can agree that during the 80's she was). However she certainly had access to a very large budget and considerable resources that enabled her to do this (not to mention some people assert that she may have had some degree of CIA assistance - since the primary target for much of those weapons during this period was the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war - when Iran was very near the top of the list of America's most hated enemies). It was hardly the homebrew and fake hairspray type operation that many more alarmist sources claim is possible. It required considerable planning, resources and operational/logistical execution in order to achieve. Less perhaps than a nuclear program - but still not insignificant by any measure.

    Nonetheless as I said this is really very much a distraction from the point being made The point being made is that there is little or no evidence for the existance of a large concerted international terrorist network of the kind commonly proposed by the Bush and Blair leadership.

    The September the 11th attacks were carried out by one small fairly disperate and unusually extremist group inside Afganistan. They had little or no connection with the other Arab groups who existed there during this period and indeed were regarded as something of a maveric entity even among the Arabs who were in the country, either working with or fighting against the Taliban (depending on where their political affiiations lay). In total 'Osama's Army' consisted of no more than about 30 peoplel. (30 people who incidentally can all be named dated and identified) - and in this regard it rated as only a tiny faction within all of the various factions that existed within the country at that time. So hardly the vast sprawling network of terrorists that our governments regularly tell us that we should all be so scared of.

    No one is denying that such weapons exist - or that terrorism itself may exist - what is being said is that there is no vast network of terrorists with sleeper cells in every country, with a vast and complex infractructure capable of producing a bemusing array of weapons of mass destruction, with one guy at the head of it all organising and planning attacks from some sophisticated cave network in the Tora Bora mountains of Afganistan. What is being said is that that is the real big lie. That really the September the 11th attacks were just the work of a few very determinied extremists who were indeed largely working alone.

    Sure it takes planning - but not vast amounts of planning. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into a busy market place in Tel Aviv and go blow up a few dozen civilians now does it?

    Similarly with the September the 11th attacks, there is often a lot of talk about the sophistication of the tactics employed by the hyjackers.

    But for me this always begs the question, what sophistication? They managed to get into the country fairly easily. Those hijackers who were selected for pilot training didn't need any special qualifications to do so - all they need to do was to be able to pay the flight schools to train them - the actual hijacks themselves were conducted with the aid of nothing more leathal than a few flimsy plastic box cutters - so clearly this can hardly be described as the WMDs that you appear to be so worried about.

    The problem for the US administration at the time was in admiting just how easy it had been for such relative amatures to hit the US as hard as they did. In order to save embarrasment on the home and international front and to avoid giving the impression that America was weak they played up the degree of sophitication of the hijackers and of the degree of planning and execution that was required in order to execute the attacks. This was when the idea of an international terrorist network was first born. (There was certainly little or no talk of an international terrorist network before then). The idea of an international terrorist network, with highly bright people running it and executing its plans, with educated and very motivated people supplying intelligence and with a large number of people attached to it (including some governments) who were so downright smart that they were capable of producing some of the most terrifying weapons the world has ever known, was certainly an easier idea to sell, than the idea that America could be so wounded by what otherwise might be regarded as a bunch of very plain drop outs and no hopers.

    There is an old Japanese martial arts phrase that roughly translated says something along the lines that the fitness of a people can only be guaged when compared against the quality of their enemies. If their enemies are weak and insignificant - then so to by implication must they be. This very much appears to be one of those instances.

    In any case it may indeed be dangerous ignore the risks of terrorism and WMDs completely - but given a full appreciation of what these dangers are - it would certainly seem that this danger is much less imposing than many in our governments would have us believe.

    I have never seen any of Michael Moor's stuff so I can't really comment. I've heard and read a lot about it, but Mr Moor seems a bit too partizan for my tastes. He aligned himself too closely with the democratic party - which I always think is a mistake for a jounalist - insomuch that aligning yourself with any political party is likely to affect your objectivity. I have access to some other much more compeling data anyway, so who needs Micheal Moor?

    I do not say that terrorism does not exist - indeed I have never said this - the only thing I am saying is that there is certainly no concerted vast network of terrorsts plotting feveroushly to attack our coutries, overthrow our govenments and invade our homes and our lives. Even the term Al Qaeda is a CIA invention. In Arabic Al Quada simly means 'the base'. The term first originated after the CIA interrogated some people in the 90's and they were told about where Osama Bin Laden's base in Afganistan was. They simply opted to misinterprit this and sell it back to their political bosses as if it were the name of some concerted organisation - when in truth it didn't really mean anything very much - except the place that the informant claimed to have last seen Bin Laden.

    If chemical and biological weapons were practical for such people to use, why haven't we been attacked already? History (and terrorism such as it is) didn't just begin 3 years ago. So how many times in the last 60 years have we been attacked? Indeed how many terrorist attacks have there been against America in the last 30 years or so? For America the average is only about 1 every 3 or 4 years. Which all in all, hardly warrants the degree of fear that they produce.

    [quoteMaybe because terrorism kills less people than flu does in one year that it is a small threat. But it does exist. And smart people are terrorists too.[/quote]

    No flu is statistically far more deadly than terrorsm. Last year something like 64,000 people died fromm flu realted illnesses, compared to exactly zero from terrorism. Indeed even crossing the street in front of your house is statistically much more dangerous than terrorism. In 2003 something in the region of 42,000 people died in America as a result of a road accident, with something like 16% of them dying within about 300 yards from their own home. Again compared to deaths from terrorism - even this 16% far outweighs the number of deaths caused by terrorsm (which again is zero) in the same year. Indeed it even considerably outweighs the number of people killed during the Word Trade Centre attacks themselves.

    Nonetheless it would be silly to ignore the risk that terrorism does pose - but in many ways this has already been addressed. Prior to the September the 11th attacks, the internal US security system was in a total mess. (Which is another reason this imaginary threat was invented - if for no other reason than to disguise the extent of the blunders that were made). But by tightening up on internal controls, by modernising the security at airports and places of public and strategic importance, by giving extra resources to the police and the FBI to investigate potential threats, the risks of another attack have been much diminished. The problem is that George W. and here in the UK our own Tony Blair have taken this process entirely too far - so that it is now possible for them to lock people up without charge and to suspend their civil rights almost indefinately. That's the part I find hard to take.

    A lot of these other issues you refer to are pretty much unconnected events. Again no one is saying that terorsim doesn't exist, the only thing that is very difficult to believe is that any vast interconnected newtork of terrorsts exists. In Russia the terrorsts are generally all Chechens - so nothing to do with Middle East terrorism, the violence in Israel is pretty much a two way street, with the Israelis hurting the Palistinians just as much as the Palistinans are hurting them, the DC sniper was just a simple psychopath - there was no known links between him and terrorism of any kind - let alone any kind of international terrorism.

    This is about understanding the numbers and weighing up the statistics. When you do this you do tend to get the impression that the actual danger of terrorism is far less significant than a lot of people want us to believe.

    Best regards

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  5. zerodamage

    zerodamage New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would love some of what you are smoking. I would also like nothing more than to be totally detached from reality. You seem to have forgotten 9-11 (So many of you leftists have for the sake of making it easier to Hate the U.S. and Bush). You seem to have forgotten the attacks in Australia and Spain. Most importanly, you seem to have forgotten the Palistinian terrorists who Saddam fed money to the families of, encouraging them to do this. The next step was supplying WMD which Saddam had (and may have done just what you said never happens, he may have given them to Terrorists). So please come back to reality.
     
  6. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I pretty much am very firmly in reality thanks. I didn't forget Spain, I didn't forget 9/11 - indeed I haven't forgotten anything at all. As I have said perhaps 10 times already - even though typically you have chosen to ignore it - no one is saying that terrorism as a phenomenon doesn't exist - only that there is no underlying vast structure tying all of these events together, that there is no general command mechanism - no mafia type organisation called Al Quada (which again given the literal interpritation of what this actually means is pretty nonsensical and which is almost undoubtedly itself a CIA invented name) tying all of the events together. These were all seperate unconnected acts often conducted by only a very few of a very few of the more extreme elements within our societies. All in all they represent only a tiny fraction of what is already a very small body of opinion within the school of Islam. They almost certainly do not pose the level of military threat commonly proposed by our governments - they have little or no prospect whatsoever of ever having the capacity to harm us in any signicant way, or to overthrow our governments - and what is more they have little prospect of ever having the practical, intellectual or financial resources (I doubt even Osama's alleged few millions would be enough) to formulate an effective WMD program against anyone. As for 'what I'm smoking' if you really do want some it's called 'proof' - a concept which I know you are uncomfortable with. I have what amounts to pretty much cast iron evidence as to the accuracy of much of what I am saying. Of course I am sure despite however irrefutable it may be, you would still want to designate it as a part of some leftist plot (as that really does seem to be your only answer to most things these days) but I have little doubt that you would have virtually zero capacity to find any proof of of your own to counter it. Perhaps you might just about manage a few derogatory comments such as the above - but really this hardly qualifies as any credible kind of debunking of any of the main points I have made. I would be happy to work through each of these on a point by point basis with you - providing clarification and clear evidence wherever needed - and would be happy to provide counter arguments to any objections you might raise, providing of course that these arguments are not just founded on your opinion and that you can supply similar standards of evidence to back your own claims up.

    Of course I can't prove anything if people here refuse to even look at the evidence - which I guess all in all must be very convienient for you. But for anyone who does want to look, as I have also said several times now, just let me know and Iwill give you all the evidence you could ever possibly need.

    The choice is yours.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2004
  7. zerodamage

    zerodamage New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LMAO!! There is NO Al-Qaida. LOL. Like I said in my last post, I want what you are smoking.
     
  8. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I already made that offer. As prediced the only response you could manage was some half assed meaningless retort - with no particular content and no viable response to any of the points being made.

    You want proof? All you have to do is ask.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2004
  9. RDoggy

    RDoggy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My retort was voteing Bush. Just imagine all the lectures we would have gotten from people like Hillary Clinton and Madeline Halfbright . But we need to keep A few liberals like
    raid517 around. Just so people can see who they are. His opinions are in the minority. Just look at the election returns. And really what good would it do to llisten to a bunch of losers.
     
  10. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's right for once you know. Alquaeda was made up after 911 as a "web of terror with unbelievable power" but this never had or did exist! He's totally right, even though I hate to admit it :bleh:
     
  11. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well perhaps I should remind you that there are still 48% of the American population who did not vote for Bush. So this by no measure qualifies as a 'vast majority.' Indeed it is within a good statistical margin of error so that it can be pretty much classed as half of all Americans who's views are not currently represented. Moreover opinion in the rest of the world is still very firmly against Bush - where polls showed that if everyone could have voted in the US elections (not that I'm saying they should) something like 86% of them would have voted firmly against Bush. So again your perception of what constitutes a looser is a little warped. Furthermore Europe remains above all pretty firmly on the left of the political spectrum - so from my own perspective we here haven't really lost anything. This was a US election, our choices here are not the same as yours. I feel sorry for the half of the American population who's views will not be fairly represented - but at the end of the day that really is an American issue. Providing we here in my own country are not overty affected by what the US government chooses to do and we remain a fairly liberal society ourselves, I can pretty much deal with it.

    Nonetheless this isn't really a political matter. The fact's and evidence I have been alluding to all of this time have no real poltical affiliation attached to them. We are talking about names, dates, times, specific people, official doccumentation, interviews with ex intelligence personel, actual video footage - things that when looked at from any angle - despite whatever side of the political spectrum they may be viewd from would be virtually impossible for anyone to refute.

    Right now all you have heard is from the prosecution. Imagine that that is the way your court system worked? Imagine someone accused you of murder - or any crime for that matter - and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you were never allowed to present your case for the defence? This isn't entirely a political scenario. It can however be described as horrifically unjust. Right now that is the angle frojm which you are judging the evidence so far presented to you. So without really seeing the evidence, without judging the story from both sides of the argument, how can you say that you are certain that you know what you have been told so far is accurate? All you have heard to date is the case for the prosecution. What if the case for the defense was so overwhelming that it had the potential to pretty much comprehensively destroy all of the main points the prosecution had so far made? If you were in a court of law and had been accused of some form of wrong doing (or lying as I am commonly accused of by some people here) and had important evidence you knew would be all but guranteed to clear your name, wouldn't you want that evidence to be heard?

    As I said the choice is yours.

    GJ
     
  12. Jitter

    Jitter Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Radiation at low levels it can harmful even if you see no immediate effects especially if you inhale it. It may not kill you directly, but it can increase your chances of developing cancer and such. Are you saying if you were in an area where a dirty bomb was detonated you wouldnt be worried about your health at all??....I highly doubt it..... If you forget already weapons grade anthrax was already released/mailed so whos to say other types of biological weapons cant get out? I think you are being very naive in your views and unerestimating the will of extremists to destroy free countries. Im not saying people should be living in fear, but you cant live in
    denial either. If someone told you that terrorists had a plan to hjack planes in the United States fly them into various buildings, and bring down both twin towers, you probably wouldnt of believed that either.
     
  13. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First you do not 'inhale' radiation, radiation is not a gas - although confusingly for some perhaps there is such a thing as a radioactive gas in the form of radeon. Radiation however does not require a gas in order to spread - so whether you breath it in or not is largly irrelevant.

    Yes that is exactly what I am saying. The effects of any such explosion would serve to have the effect of spreading the radeological material over a large area. The wider you spread this material the lower the levels of radioactive concentration is produced - and concequently the lower the levels of potential exposure. It is a very simple logic and not at all difficult to grasp. The problem as has been noted above is that many people do not understand how radation works or even what it is.

    There are other kinds of risks - but largely the problems that exist are often associated with a misconception of how deadly these risks are.

    The main problem is that while these weapons would (if they were used) have the primary function of being a weapon of terror - the people responsible for spreading the majority of this terror are the government themselves. If the goverment undertook a program of public education to explain what the risks really were you could do much to defeat this ignorance and fear - and in so doing you would go a long way to defeating one of the primary weapons in any terrorists arsenal - which is the terror and irrational panic that such attacks would produce. That is the real issue at hand. Why are our goverments playing up this fear instead of working hard to actively to defeat it?

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2004

Share This Page

visited