Better nuke Israel before it is too late

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote:

IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.

There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
for more than a few years, it's a word.

It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.

Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote:

IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.

There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use

Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.

for more than a few years, it's a word.

It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.

Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.

There is nothing ill-formed about any of these words.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
(Rob van Riel) wrote in message . com...
that). With its current "guilty of terrorism by the broadest possible
association" policy, and resultant deliberate targetting of civilians,
it has also become a terrorist organisation.
Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
"death to Israel".

If anyone picks up a weapon and points it at any soldier, Israeli or
otherwise, that person has no ground for complaints if he or she gets
wasted. I don't think chanting anything is supposed to be a capital
offence. Hosting terrorists needs more proof than the Israeli
govenment's say so.
Levelling a block of flats because there might have been a terrorist
living there is targetting civilians, no matter how you look at it.


Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
and those that support terror?

You mean they don't consider every Palestinian who lives in the
occupied territories a terrorist until proven otherwise? Well, they
sure could have fooled me.


Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations... BAM!!!...
another suicide bombing (which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
Arafat himself and his terror connections).

I must admit that this is one of the problems when fighting
terrorists, its hard to restrict their activities without imposing a
brutal police state on the general population. Israel goes a lot
further in this than most civilised countries would find acceptable,
and still they are ineffective, probably because their actions make
new bombers faster than they eliminate them.


And how can Israel
negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?

How can one negotiate with any nation one is at war with? And yet,
other than very rare total victories, this is how wars are ended.


The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation and if that
means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
bad.

Would that Apache also fire is this Hamas leader were hiding amongst
those praying at the wailing wall? I don't think so. To Israel,
Palestinian death and suffering are irrelevant, maybe even part of the
agenda.


The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
agression for all eternity.


Now you've really gone overboard. It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor,
raped China and used bio-weapons on them, killed Allied soldiers on death
marches, and did human medical experiments on helpless civilians with Unit
731.
Their determined kamikaze attacks and fanatical devotion to the
Emperor made it imperative that we use the atomic bombs to end the war
with the least casualties for both the US and Japanese. A homeland
invasion would have taken years and the casualties on both sides
probably in the millions.

True, the Japanese did some seriously horrible stuff, and were totally
determined to fight to the death. Defeating them without the use of
nuclear weapons would have been very costly. This merely proves my
point. To the Arabs, Isreal is as heinious an enemy as the Japanese
were in your opinion, and no conventional method for their removal
seems feasable. So, nuke 'em.


As far as Israel goes that nation has
between 200-400 nuclear weapons estimated (low-to-high) and has never
used them despite Saddams 1991 provocation with the Scuds and the all
too real threat that one of those warheads might have been chemical.
If you remember 1990 then you will recall Saddam threatening to burn
Israel utterly, so when the Scuds went flying Israel had to use
restraint not knowing what was in the warheads. Israel could have
destroyed Baghdad or for that matter Damascus, Tehran, or Riyadh.
Israel has no such intention, just a safeguard in the event of a war
that enters Israeli territory with no hope of winning. An Arab bomb on
the other hand has only one target and purpose- Israel, to kill the
Jews.

So, an Israeli bomb is there to get the Arabs out, at any cost,
whereas an Arab bomb would be there to get the Israelis out, at any
cost. Much the same thing.


Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
and the West for decades.

Israel started out with terrorism against Palestinians and Western
nations. No difference.

extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull).

There has never been a terrorist without some sort of justification.


Thank God President Bush is for Israel.

If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
is pretty far down the list.

Your atheistic anti-semitism is showing.

Agnostic, actually, but with sufficiently strong atheistic tendencies
to accept that. Can't find the anti-semitism though. Or is Bush a jew,
and are you insulted by the fact that I don't consider him all that
relevant?


Hey, the Palestinians had their chance for a state in 1948 and they
rejected the proposal, choosing instead to try to push the Jews into
the sea in war. They failed. And then they tried 4 more times to do it
militarily and failed 4 more times.

I never contested the military might of the IDF.


Now, its the "plight of the poor
Palestinians" nonsense. And let me tell you that Yasser Arafat won't
be content with the '67 borders- he wants Israel ultimately destroyed
and all the land. Same old goal, different strategy.

You're obviously better at reading minds than I am. I don't believe
the Palestinian hardliners would be truly content with the '67
borders, but I think they would, grudgingly, accept them if this was
the price to pay for reaching their other goals. Of course, the
Israelis wouldn't be content with those borders either, they want
every scrap of land they now occupy.

Rob

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:
The US -did- use TWO nuclear weapons;on Japan.I believe that use was
justified.

I wish I had your certainty on this. Horrible though their use was, I
know that in the long run, it probably saved lives. I even think that,
at the time, it was the correct decision. At the same time, I firmly
believe the nuclear genie should never have been let out of the
bottle. The world needs a better answer, and I deeply regret that in
1945 no better answer was deemed to be available.


It is not necessarily a 'doomsday' weapon,either.No more than bio or
chemical WMD.

Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much. Bio is probably more
dangerous, chemical is probably the lesser of these evils.


IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii could potentially mutate past any vaccine or
antibiotic protection,and could self-sustain themselves,spreading well past
the target area,perhaps 'round the world'.

Bio weapons are indeed dangerously unpredictably. They literally have
a life of their own, and do not care about any human agenda.

Rob

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.

There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
for more than a few years, it's a word.

Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.

Or who don't care about silly rules that are only followed by Latin
students with nothing better to do.

English word construction rules? You must be kidding...

It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.

Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.

There is nothing ill-formed about any of these words.

When people started using acronyms, the response by grammarians and
other linguists was very similar to the way you're complaining about
"virii." You're just used to the idea.

"Computer" used to mean "a person who does computations." When people
began using it for machines, there was a certain amount of revulsion
among the less-flexible.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:59 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.

There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
for more than a few years, it's a word.

Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.

Or who don't care about silly rules that are only followed by Latin
students with nothing better to do.

English word construction rules? You must be kidding...

Of course there are. If such things didn't exist, there'd be no such
words as "construction" or "kidding".


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:59 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

English word construction rules? You must be kidding...

Of course there are.

And they add up over time. That's why you get words like "virii."
Created by someone who wanted to differentiate computer viruses from
biological ones.

For similar issues, consider the new word "signage." Which means
"signs."

Of the tendency to tie words together through bicapitalization.

Acronyms? Fairly recent, overall. Broke that rule when someone did it
the first time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Rob van Riel wrote:


Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much.

Have to pick this nit:

The two bombs were Fat Man (plutonium implosion) and Little Boy (U-235
gun design). The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message ...
Rob van Riel wrote:


Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much.

Have to pick this nit:

The two bombs were Fat Man (plutonium implosion) and Little Boy (U-235
gun design). The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.

-Marc

You are correct, I'm always mixing these boys up.

Rob

(Marc Reeve) wrote in news:1g2w7u2.imqxk41kal68sN%
:

The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.

Just FYI, it was actually a 6 ton (12,000 lb) bomb.