Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns97A58AF5063C4juergennieveler@nieveler. org...


"George" wrote:



The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.




Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.



Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.



Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.



2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.



Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.



Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.



And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.



And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
their disposal?

George

In article 1R70g.926826$xm3.896576@attbi_s21,
George wrote:

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..

"George" wrote:


The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.



Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.


Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.


Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.


2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.


Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.


Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.


And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.


And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George
Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean

Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George


Yup

http://www.japan-101.com/culture/sar...e_tokyo_su.htm

In 1984, hundreds of people in The Dalles, Oregon became ill with
food poisoning. Local, state and federal disease detectives slowly
unraveled the medical mystery. Along with a unique strain of
bacteria, they discovered a religious cult's bizarre plot to
overthrow the government
http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/f...sodes/109.html

We also had an anthrax attack that killed a couple people (?) and
made a few more sick.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21,
George wrote:

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns97A58AF5063C4juergennieveler@nieveler .org...


"George" wrote:



The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.




Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.



Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.



Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.



2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.



Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.



Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.



And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.



And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
their disposal?


That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.






--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Al Dykes wrote:

In article Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21,
George wrote:

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...


George wrote:


"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns97A58AF5063C4juergennieveler@nievele r.org...



"George" wrote:




The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.





Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.




Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.




Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.




2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.




Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.




Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.




And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.




And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
their disposal?



That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.

They put much thought into producing the sarin. Fortunately they
didn't put too much thought into the delivery system. The Aum Shinrikyo
could have caused many more fatalities if they had released the weapon
using aerosol cans.

ALV

Juergen Nieveler wrote in message
. ..
"James H. Hood" wrote:

And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.

You don't need "recipes" for that.

If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
researching most basic stuff

No, you obtain the documentation and hire some expertise.

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
Al Dykes wrote:

In article Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21,
George wrote:

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...


George wrote:


"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in
message . ..



"George" wrote:




The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow
the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place.
When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.





Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at
a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.




Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.




Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.




2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that
heads will change, and heads will roll.




Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to
Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming
equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in
the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which
was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the
1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to
the present.




Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf
War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is
called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.




And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all,
a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like
all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control
what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as
to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and
I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq
received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate
laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories.
Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many
countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for
medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end
product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here
in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The
anthrax came from a british lab.




And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to
make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But
then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear
reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the
crowded enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to
kill twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were
injured in the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money
at their disposal?



That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.

They put much thought into producing the sarin. Fortunately they didn't
put too much thought into the delivery system. The Aum Shinrikyo could
have caused many more fatalities if they had released the weapon using
aerosol cans.

ALV

They also puit a lot of thought into producing mustard gas, a fact with
which the Kurds and Iranians are all too familiar.

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
(Al Dykes) wrote:

We also had an anthrax attack that killed a couple people (?) and
made a few more sick.

IIRC the Anthrax spores used in that attack were ground so finely that
experts suggested they might have been produced for military tests,
correct?

Juergen Nieveler

The fact is that noone knows who conducted those attacks, nor exactly where
the anthrax came from.

George

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article 3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...




They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
Iran-Iraq
war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
thinsg
worse
and more complicated.

Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
the
last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
could make you so delusional?


Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
to share.



Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.

But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.



That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
supported
by the Pakistan secret service.

True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
their own tribe on their own turf, etc.


There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
fought against Islamic extremists.



Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.

For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.


Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."

Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today, the
vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In
other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
peace", eh?

George

Juergen Nieveler wrote in message
. ..
"James H. Hood" wrote:

If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
researching most basic stuff

No, you obtain the documentation and hire some expertise.

IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
Union

Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

The fact is that noone knows who conducted those attacks, nor exactly
where the anthrax came from.

I know - however, there were some reports that the Anthrax in those
cases was extremely finely ground, and treated in a way to prevent it
from clotting up. With military Anthrax this was done to prevent it
from clogging up the dispensers on aircraft doing a laydown of agent,
and to make sure the spores stay airborne and get far enough into the
lungs. Anthrax used for medical research apparently would have looked
different - hence the (conspiracy) theory that the stuff was stolen in
a military lab like Fort Detrick.

Juergen Nieveler
--
Flirtation - attention without intention.

Well, everyone has a conspiracy theory these days, right? Rumours don't
equal reality.

George