|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| rapier wrote: |
| Americas way of debunking its fears is to make movies. Doesn't mean that the danger goes away after the hollywood release date. |
Wow, that's deep. No shit, Sherlock.
Did you read my previous reply to you? I Can't see how it's possible that you did, unless you didn't understand it.
Let's review:
You said you "had seen reports" on terrorists with nuclear weapons in America.
I asked whether these 'reports' verified this.
In response you gave me a book review and a Nostradmus link.
Can you not understand the difference between 'report' and 'speculate'?
Your source 'speculates' that it is 'likely' that there are terrorists with nuclear weapons already in America. There are numerous deductions that would suggest this is not the case.
I never indicated that this sort of threat should be ignored or discounted- the opposite in fact.
Why you always insist on beating up on some poor strawman who coincidentally has the same name as me?
You ignore what I write and then pretend I wrote things I didn't.
It's creepy.
I worry that you're going to start sending me love letters soon or something.
"Bulsajo said he loves me and that we'll run away together."
If I get a pm like that I'm calling the mods! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice articles, but nothing especially new or shocking in them.
I hope you didn't post them as stand ins for Nostradamus, because they still don't back up your statement that you've seen reports of terrorists in America with nuclear weapons.
Apparently you still don't get it, so I'm going to spell it out for you as clearly as I can-
I'm not calling BS on the possiblity of such a scenario;
I'm calling BS on you trying to pass yourself off as some sort of an expert who has seen some sort of insider reports that do more than just speculate.
In October- regardles of wherever else I may be- I will still be 'here'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
The evidence of Nukes already positioned in the US comes from information found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammads laptop when he was arrested on March 1, 2003.
Let me just quote a lot from Paul Williams to save my typing.
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Some things to consider:
(1) The Russians are not stupid people to allow compromise of
their weapons. |
Apparently they are because their are gaping discrepancies in Russian records of accounted-for uranium. A lot has gone missing from their dilapidated silos in the past 10 years.
| Quote: |
(2.) The Chechens would have long ago deployed such a weapon if
they had one, and they have good reason to. |
Showing their nuclear potential would be more effective than actually using it. It'd be suicide for Chechnya to Nuke Russia.
In 1995, the Chechens under Com. Shamail Basayev planted a radiological bomb in Izmailovsky Park near Moscow . The bomb was made of cesium-137, and, if detonated, would have killed thousands of Russians. This incident represented the first case of a nuke to be deployed as a weapon of terror. Later that same year, Dzokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen Mafia, offered to sell his collection of nuclear weapons to the United States in exchange for U. S. recognition of Chechnya 's independence. The Clinton Administration declined and so the weapons were sold to al-Qaida.
| Quote: |
(3) Osama would have already used such a weapon against the US,
Britain,Canada, Spain or Poland |
The worst time for al-Qaida to use its nuclear weapons would have been during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq when the U.S. remained on high alert. A defining characteristic of bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: "I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience." He started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania when he was in the Sudan in 1993; the attack of the USS Cole was more than two years in the making and eight years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second. The planned American Hiroshima is enormous in scope. It requires not only development and (in some cases) rebuilding of the weapons along with codification for detonation but also forward deployment, site preparation and precise strategic coordination with scattered cells.
Bin Laden will not allow the attack to take place unless there is certainty of success. His entire resources (including the gains from the poppy fields) have been spent on this operation. After scrutinizing the situation and analyzing the data, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times , said that the "best reason" for thinking that the nuclear attack by al-Qaida will NOT happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding this conclusion represents "terrible logic."
There is also empirical proof that al-Qaida possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan . In Herat , they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested at the checkpoint at Ramallah with a weapon strapped to his back. At first, Israeli intelligence thought that the weapon was a radiological bomb but later confirmed, as reported by Richard Sales of UPI and other reputable journalists, that it was a tactical nuke. There are more examples, including the canister of uranium 238 that U.S. military officials discovered in a lead canister in Kandahar at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Bin Laden can't sit on these weapons for years. They require constant maintenance. At any given time, a tactical nuke exudes a temperature in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that they are prone to oxidation and rust. Moreover, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds decay rapidly and have short half-lives – most would become useless without maintenance in less than four months. The nuclear cores also are subject to decay and over the course of several years would fall below the critical mass threshold. Though the shells that encase the cores are the most durable parts of the weapons, they, too, are subject to contamination. The tritium used to compensate for the required amount of conventional explosives to compress the fissile core within the compact devices is less of an issue since it has a half-life of 12.3 years. Taking all things into consideration, the attack should occur within the very near future. The bombs which bin Laden began building in 1992 are for the American Hiroshima.
On Oct. 11, 2001 , George Tenet, former CIA director, met with President Bush to inform him that at least two tactical nukes have reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. This news was substantiated by Pakistan 's ISI, the CIA and the FBI.
In accordance with this discovery, the Bush administration deployed hundreds of new and sophisticated Gamma Ray Neutron Flux Detector sensors to U.S. borders, overseas facilities and "choke points" around Washington, D.C. The administration further assigned Delta Force, the elite special operations detachment unit of the U.S. Army, the task of killing or disabling any or all suspects. Such measures have proved to be ineffective. Richard L. Wagner, senior staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack that the currently installed radiation detection systems are highly limited in their capabilities and, in general, insufficient to the task. To add to the problem of insecurity, the borders remain almost completely porous and less than 10 percent of the freight that arrives at major ports (including New York/New Jersey) is inspected.
Q: I have trouble believing that teams required to maintain a nuclear weapon wouldn't be detected here in the U.S.
PW: There isn't just one team but, at least, seven. They are working within mosques and Islamic centers. In the U.S., a federal judge will not provide any FBI or law enforcement agent with a warrant to search a mosque of an Islam center for any reason since such places are listed as "houses of worship."
Q: Seven teams?
PW: At least seven teams, according to information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaida operatives, in at least seven metropolitan areas. These areas have been identified as New York, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. The attack will occur simultaneously at the seven sites.
Q: How do you know you can trust what Khalid Sheikh Mohammad said? In the past, he's given us bogus information, some of which led to orange alerts. Some say he and other al-Qaida operatives are waging a disinformation campaign meant to dull our senses.
PW: No, you can't trust Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, but you can trust the information that was obtained from his laptop when he was arrested on March 1, 2003 .
They are not for use in the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Iraq or Afghanistan . The declaration of war was issued against the United States and al-Qaida insists that over 4 million Americans must die for the sake of parity. They are intent upon realizing this objective and the doomsday clock by all reckoning is very near midnight .
| Quote: |
(4) The Russian mafia is not stupid either since they live in
Russia. Why would they want to destroy their own base of
operation? |
The nukes they sold on to Al Quaeda are meant for America, not Russia.
Do you think its maybe possible Russia and Al Quaeda are co-operating?
Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri began recruiting former Spetsnaz technicians circa 1997. By 1999, a host of such technicians (along with nuclear scientists from China ) were working at al-Qaida laboratories in Afghanistan and Pakistan . By 2000, al-Qaida also secured the help of scientists and technicians from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility in Pakistan , including the assistance of Khan himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's predictable, now you're debating that idiotic review from Amazon.com.
I said I liked that review, but I never said why and you never thought to ask, did you?
You just assumed that you knew why, probably because you think that your "worldview is more informed" or something like that. 
Read that review again and see if you can't figure out what's so hilarious about it.
| Rapier wrote: |
| The evidence of Nukes already positioned in the US comes from information found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammads laptop when he was arrested on March 1, 2003. |
Cool, then it should be no problem for you to link a source or two.
Is the rest of it you typing with your wee lil figgins into the computer from a book you are holding, or are you cutting and pasting?
Links please.
If they're solid there's no reason for you not include them, it just makes you look like you're hiding something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Rapier wrote: |
| The evidence of Nukes already positioned in the US comes from information found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammads laptop when he was arrested on March 1, 2003. |
Cool, then it should be no problem for you to link a source or two.
|
Why do research when you can just post a nebulous quatrain to prove your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:03 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Would seem to me the USA has two major threats that are cheaper to deal with via nukes: |
I would add "more convenient" to cheaper.
Again, having a radiated area from which limited evidence can be brought out and to which access is severely limited makes the burden of proof more obscure and delayed.
| Quote: |
| 1) massive underground complexes for making WMD. The Libyans before they became everyones new friend constructed some massive canyon complex. Short of a nuke, no bombing would touch it. The entrance even was at the end of a winding canyon and no cruise missile could navigate down that trench (although Red 5 could!) |
Fair enough.
| Quote: |
| 2) huge future Chinese submarine fleets those could sink a carrier group. Nuclear depth charges would be the easiest way to deal with them. |
Never considered this, but the prospect is scary. What would the environmental effect be? Would a sub fleet like this group so close together?
Moreover, why wouldn't a nuclear attack on a sub-fleet provoke a conventional attack on either the carrier-group or another target? If we're talking about the future, wouldn't one expect the Chines to have nuclear submarines?
| Quote: |
| If the US can move the perception that using nukes in either two cases isn't at all like dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, well, that's great for the Pentagon. |
Indeed, if the US can persuade anyone that it's ok for them to use any form of nukes pre-emptively, it's a great victory for them period.
Now, who would condone such a thing?
Britain? I would give them a next-to-nil likelihood. Anybody else? Zero. Perhaps Tonga.
Beyond that, it is purely insane to use nukes pre-emptively unless there is some DAMNING evidence that a nuke is about to be used against you.
Moreover, it is delusionally hypocritical to speak of non-proliferation while you're telling people that you're considering nuclear options.
This administration has more than proven itself incapable of discerning DAMNING evidence from a hunch.
Let Iraq be the limit of W playing around with executive power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:24 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Indeed, if the US can persuade anyone that it's ok for them to use any form of nukes pre-emptively, it's a great victory for them period.. |
And all this while they tell North korea they can't be trusted with nuclear power in any form, even for "peaceful purposes'.
Bulsajo:
if you're expecting a link revealing printouts of everything stored on Khalid Sheik mohammed's hard disc, and maps of where the nukes are being tended in the U.S, i think you'll be dissapointed.
What I do have is this account of his arrest:
What Was Recovered With Mohammed?
Officials and the Qudoos family originally claimed that a single computer hard drive, documents, and US dollars were taken from the house. [AP, 3/2/03 (B), Australian Broadcasting Corp., 3/2/03] The family said the single computer had no Internet hookup, and the mentally impaired Ahmed Abdul Qudoos didn't know how to use it. [AP, 3/2/03 (B)] Soon it was reported that authorities were said to have ��recovered a huge amount of information about al-Qaeda�� from multiple computers, disks, cell phones and documents recovered with Mohammed. [Associated Press, 3/3/03] They very quickly ��gleaned crucial information�� from a ��mother lode�� of evidence.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayksmcapture
Your former assertion that Russians would not supply nuclear materials is deeply flawed by the way-
"authorities in Thailand intercepted a man trying to sell radioactive material that could have been used to make "dirty bombs." The 70 pounds of cesium-137, reportedly smuggled out of Russia, was seized by Thai police after US authorities tipped them off."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0618/p09s01-coop.htm
also on that link- "It is undeniable that Al Qaeda, for example, is seeking to deploy the full arsenal of WMD. It would be difficult to conclude otherwise, given the discovery of notes, manuals, videos, hard drives, and Internet documents found in abandoned Al Qaeda safe houses, caves, and training camps in Afghanistan and more recently in the Ansar al-Islam camp in formerly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. This evidence contained material on conventional explosives, WMD (including dirty bombs), and potential target sites, such as nuclear power plants.
Even before Sept. 11, Western intelligence agencies knew that Al Qaeda had contacts with Pakistani nuclear scientists. The terrorist network had only limited technological capabilities then, and there is no clear evidence it had possession of WMD or the materials to make them. But given time, the right environment, and the needed infrastructure, acquiring these weapons may be inevitable, especially with the recruitment of out-of-work or motivated scientists."
Khalid had plans to blow up nuclear facilities, but this was delayed, presumably from the top, as it might get out of hand. but the plans and capability were there.
http://is.ci-ce-ct.com:85/Feature%20articles/17-03-2003.asp
*interestingly Sheik mohammed planned to bomb a United airlines flight en route to Kimpo airport in Seoul (I used to live right beside it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka
and he visited seoul numerous times to scout out US military targets here. We may even have rubbed shoulders with him in Itaewon!
http://www.geocities.com/china_e_lobby/11October2004NK.html
So Bulsajo...if there is definite proof nukes have been smuggled into the U.S by Al Quaeda, it is being kept under wraps for obvious reasons. But I think you'll agree that it is highly likely. Wether these materials have been successfully maintained for an attack at any moment is a different matter. I did see a report stating that captured islamic agents specified that 2 Al Quaeda operatives had definitely smuggled in Nuclear materials from mexico- but i can't find the link now, so we'll have to leave it on the back burner for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:23 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| But I think you'll agree that it is highly likely. |
Highly likely that they're trying?
Yes, I'd agree to that.
But that's not what you wrote before, and that's not what you're writing now.
Highly likely that they've already assembled a nuclear device in the continental US?
No I do not think that's highly likely and none of your speculative sources has done anything to convince me otherwise.
As usual you're obfuscating to cover a BS statement you made, just like you always do.
It's obvious to anyone reading this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:39 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Just to note:
It's not obvious to me anymore what rapier is doing.
I was once told by a mod that "trash the poster" threads were not allowed.
(something I did attempt in response to Joo's cross-pasting tactics)
I went on vacation, then came back to find whatthefunk's "trash rapier" thread.
Rapier's always had some extreme opinions, but I do feel like he IS being trashed since that thread.
Either way, Joo and I were able to talk via PM. We sorted a lot of stuff out.
I think the board's been the better for it.
However, if every thread is to include rapier-baiting, then how about take it to PM? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree, some of the issues aren't worth arguing publicly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well then Nowhere Man and Summer Wine, go back to very beginning of this thread and re-read.
Summer Wine, I'm surprised you haven't taken Rapier to task for hijacking your thread on the second post- although of course I'm guilty of that now as well.
As for taking things to PM- Um, no.
If Rapier wants to post outrageous crap then I'll be calling him on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:00 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'm as guilty as anyone.
I hope Rapier takes it to PM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hijacking Then read another of my posts about whether posts go ascrew very often. I always see posts deviate from thier topics, why should I take mine personal? Will it stop it?
I read these to understand others opinions, even if I don't agree. It is better to be verbally aggressive than physically aggressive, so I support the notion of free speech. I want to understand what the opposers of my thoughts think, it helps to clarify why I think the way I do and helps to educate me to new and better ways of thinking.
I don't claim to know everything, sometimes people are wrong, sometimes they illuminate me to the mistakes of my arguments. Both are educational, as I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks nowhere man, and I relinquish this thread back to the OP's original topic. Usually I'm not one to mod report anybody for a few insults, but obsessively stalking is a different matter.
I think banning Bulsajo, Gord and manner of speaking would do a lot to improve the fluency of articulate discussion on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:08 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I'm as guilty as anyone.
I hope Rapier takes it to PM. |
Why would he? He wants an audience, and craves to be acknowledged as a prophet on every subject he posts on.
Every thread he's particpated in the Current Events forum in the last month attests to this.
Other recent examples:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=44431
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=44572
Leave him alone?
Sure, just as soon as he starts participating in this forum like a reasonable human being instead of feces-smeared lunatic who thinks he's channeling Nostradamus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
