Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Actually, I believe that we had six bombs. But that is beside the point, I think. Two seemed to be enough. Jon Gary Smith wrote: > Also, they only had the two bombs. To make more would take months of > refining the ore and building the bombs. To use one in an ineffective way > would have been a waste of precious resources that could finish the war > quickly and with fewer casualties. > > K'aya K'ama, > Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www > .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html > "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." - > Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > > > At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: > >Stephen, > > > >Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States > >maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a > >"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same > >purpose. > > This is an excellent question. The rationale at the time was that a > "demonstration" of nuclear power would also demonstrate an unwillingness > to > use that power against people - thus negating its effectiveness. It was > obviously a difficult decision either way. I find it hard to support > second quessing the men who had to make it without our 50 years of > hindsight. > > Rick Mathis > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Thanks, Rick. Hogwash is a much better term than Barbara Streisand (BS). Jon Rick Mathis wrote: > Hogwash! Traditionally, raping and looting were the means by which the > troops were paid. "War is Hell" did not originate with Sherman. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote: After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with: I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Convention for example, which proscribes signatories from bombing hospitals and outlines proper procedures for handling the captured (POW's). So how successful have these rules been that attempt to make civilized that which cannot be civilized? --JWR According to President Benson, one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is so that armies will know how to conduct themselves during war. I can't find the reference right off hand but I remember the statement. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote: After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with: I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Convention for example, which proscribes signatories from bombing hospitals and outlines proper procedures for handling the captured (POW's). So how successful have these rules been that attempt to make civilized that which cannot be civilized? --JWR Not very I have to admit. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.getusout.org";>http://www.getusout.org/images/guolink.gif";> // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with: I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Convention for example, which proscribes signatories from bombing hospitals and outlines proper procedures for handling the captured (POW's). So how successful have these rules been that attempt to make civilized that which cannot be civilized? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 01:43 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote: At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be poured out upon all nations) beginning with General Sherman's march to the sea. Hogwash! Traditionally, raping and looting were the means by which the troops were paid. "War is Hell" did not originate with Sherman. Rick Mathis I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Convention for example, which proscribes signatories from bombing hospitals and outlines proper procedures for handling the captured (POW's). -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
You're both right, but are talking about different periods of history. After the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century, military battles, which until then had been as Rick characterizes them, took on a more "civilized" manner. It lasted maybe about a century. Rick Mathis wrote: > At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: > >Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the > >laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians > >as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be > >poured out upon all nations) beginning with General Sherman's march to the sea. > > Hogwash! Traditionally, raping and looting were the means by which the > troops were paid. "War is Hell" did not originate with Sherman. > > Rick Mathis > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: Stephen, Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same purpose. This is an excellent question. The rationale at the time was that a "demonstration" of nuclear power would also demonstrate an unwillingness to use that power against people - thus negating its effectiveness. It was obviously a difficult decision either way. I find it hard to support second quessing the men who had to make it without our 50 years of hindsight. Rick Mathis // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be poured out upon all nations) beginning with General Sherman's march to the sea. Hogwash! Traditionally, raping and looting were the means by which the troops were paid. "War is Hell" did not originate with Sherman. Rick Mathis // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
It's not hard to shield against caesium; I wouldn't worry if I were her. The energy is less than 1 MEV by a long shot; only a few hundred thousand KEV, if I recall correctly. Enough to ionize upon contact, but it doesn't require much more than a lead-lined room to keep it shielded. "Elmer L. Fairbank" wrote: > At 09:31 11/9/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote: > > >I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford > >Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a > >display > >of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder > >and put > >it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security > >-- this > >kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One would > >hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, > > > > How comforting. My office is sandwiched between a plant growth room and > Cesium storage. > > Till the glow-worm > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 12:45 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is history. As though precision was really necessary. Hindsight is always very good. Till the ever watchful / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 09:31 11/9/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote: I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a display of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder and put it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security -- this kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One would hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, How comforting. My office is sandwiched between a plant growth room and Cesium storage. Till the glow-worm / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: But my whole point is that it is SO easy to sit back and second guess what might have been or could have been or whatever 57 years ago. But all those who do this are not in the position that President Truman was. Truman fired MacArthur. It is unlikely that he did anything else right. All MacArthur wanted was permission to win the Korean War. He should have quit before Truman fired him. But Truman was a first class villain. My feelings about Truman are 180 degrees out of phase with those I feel for Washington, Reagan, etc. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === "A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony." --President Harold B. Lee === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
We visited my brother-in-law in St. George, just south of you, in February 2000, and they had to turn the air-conditioning on at night for us. I am not making this up. Steven Montgomery wrote: > At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February > I can jump in the car and in 40 minutes be in short sleeve weather. > > -- > Steven Montgomery > > At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: > >Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe > >we'll allow a > >side-trip to Medicine Hat, the 40-40 city (where it's either plus 40 or > >minus 40 o > >C; nothing in between). > > > >Steven Montgomery wrote: > > > > > LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now? > > > > > > -- > > > Steven Montgomery > > > > > > At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: > > > >Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown > > Moose Jaw in > > > >the second week of January. > > > >Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the > > > >pilot, > > > >and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the > > > >Enola Gay > > > >here) > > > > > > > >Steven Montgomery wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, > > > > > >although I'm > > > > > >sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is > > that > > > > > >Nagasaki > > > > > >wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was > > > > > >clouded over > > > > > >that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the > > > > > >historical centre > > > > > >of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia > > question is: > > > > > >what was > > > > > >the original target? > > > > > > > > > > The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. > > > > > Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier > > raid on a > > > > > nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite > > three > > > > > separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also > > obscured > > > > > by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the > > rest is > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Steven Montgomery > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a > > standard of > > > > > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which > > American > > > > > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > > > > > --Steven W. Mosher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > > > > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Marc A. Schindler > > > >Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > > > > > > > >"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he > > > >will pick > > > >himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill > > > > > > > >Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the > > author > > > >solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's > > > >employer, > > > >nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. > > > > > > > >/// > > // > > > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > >/// > > // > > > > > > > > > > > > / > > > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > > > / > > > > > > >-- > >Marc A. Schindler > >Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > > > >"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he > >will pick > >himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill > > > >Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author > >solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's > >employer, nor > >those of any organization with which the author may be associated. > > > >/ > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ > > > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Plea
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
No, I'm the one who said we should write in Hinckley. Stacy. At 07:59 PM 11/09/2002 -0700, you wrote: This from the guy who wants to elect President Hinckley and curse with him a politician's job? ;-) Paul Osborne wrote: > Jon wisely said: > >Those who want to fault the US for what we > >did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame > the > >nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well. > > And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was > wise and the making of more nuclear weapons was even wiser. Thank > goodness we have a government that wants to protect us against our > enemies and thank goodness President Truman was not a coward. Thank > goodness there is a separation between church and state!! > > Paul O > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > > Only $9.95 per month! > > Visit www.juno.com > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Well, you're a pretty good student of the war, that's for sure. Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > >Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased > >properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to > >French West Africa (Algiers?) for protection when France was invaded. The > >British > >scuttled the entire French fleet at one fell swoop, to prevent them from > >falling > >into German hands and/or for fear that the Vichy French would use them in > >cooperation with the Germans, much to DeGaulle's consternation. > > I knew somebodies fleet was scuttled, i just forgot who the actors were. > > -- > Steven Montgomery > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > --Steven W. Mosher > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February I can jump in the car and in 40 minutes be in short sleeve weather. -- Steven Montgomery At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe we'll allow a side-trip to Medicine Hat, the 40-40 city (where it's either plus 40 or minus 40 o C; nothing in between). Steven Montgomery wrote: > LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now? > > -- > Steven Montgomery > > At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: > >Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in > >the second week of January. > >Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the > >pilot, > >and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the > >Enola Gay > >here) > > > >Steven Montgomery wrote: > > > > > At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > > > > > >Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, > > > >although I'm > > > >sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that > > > >Nagasaki > > > >wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was > > > >clouded over > > > >that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the > > > >historical centre > > > >of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: > > > >what was > > > >the original target? > > > > > > The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. > > > Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a > > > nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three > > > separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured > > > by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is > > > history. > > > > > > -- > > > Steven Montgomery > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > > > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > > > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > > > --Steven W. Mosher > > > > > > > > / > > > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > > > / > > > > > > >-- > >Marc A. Schindler > >Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > > > >"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he > >will pick > >himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill > > > >Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author > >solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's > >employer, > >nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. > > > >/// // > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/// // > > > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe we'll allow a side-trip to Medicine Hat, the 40-40 city (where it's either plus 40 or minus 40 o C; nothing in between). Steven Montgomery wrote: > LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now? > > -- > Steven Montgomery > > At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: > >Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in > >the second week of January. > >Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the > >pilot, > >and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the > >Enola Gay > >here) > > > >Steven Montgomery wrote: > > > > > At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > > > > > >Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, > > > >although I'm > > > >sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that > > > >Nagasaki > > > >wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was > > > >clouded over > > > >that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the > > > >historical centre > > > >of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: > > > >what was > > > >the original target? > > > > > > The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. > > > Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a > > > nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three > > > separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured > > > by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is > > > history. > > > > > > -- > > > Steven Montgomery > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > > > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > > > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > > > --Steven W. Mosher > > > > > > > > / > > > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > > > / > > > > > > >-- > >Marc A. Schindler > >Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > > > >"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he > >will pick > >himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill > > > >Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author > >solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's > >employer, > >nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. > > > >/ > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ > > > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to French West Africa (Algiers?) for protection when France was invaded. The British scuttled the entire French fleet at one fell swoop, to prevent them from falling into German hands and/or for fear that the Vichy French would use them in cooperation with the Germans, much to DeGaulle's consternation. I knew somebodies fleet was scuttled, i just forgot who the actors were. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
As per my other post, I may not have phrased this well, but note that I capitalized "Ally" as in "Allies" or "Allied forces" as opposed to "Axis" forces. It was the British, who scuttled the French fleet in N. Africa -- I'm pretty sure it was in Algiers harbour -- so they wouldn't be used by Vichy France in cooperation with the Nazis. The Free French had moved them there for protection, but the British knew -- but wouldn't tell the French -- that the Germans had their eye on North Africa. DeGaulle was supremely teed about this. Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > >Trivia question: what major Ally's naval assets were destroyed by another > >Ally, > >and why? > > This was a harder one, but I think I remember it was the Germans who > scuttled Italy's ships to prevent them from falling into Allied hands. Am I > right? > > -- > Steven Montgomery > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > --Steven W. Mosher > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely, >however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may >very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely. Hey, at least I know how to win a war and that is the purpose of fighting a war. Can you imagine paying tribute to Japan today? You should count your lucky stars the bombs were dropped. I am. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Actually I was thinking of Norway. Poland was considered (wrongly, of course) a combatant and was, of course, invaded by Germany which started the war. Britain had not guaranteed their neutrality, but had said it would declare war if Germany invaded, which is what happened. Britain occupied Norway to forestall the Nazis invading it. All to no avail as we now know. Again, this is all just from memory and for fun, so I stand to be corrected. Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > >Trivia question: who first broke neutrality in WWII? > > Great Britain, September 3, 1940, ostensibly to guarantee the territorial > integrity of Poland. However after the war Poland was divvied up to the > Soviets--so what the heck was WWII fought for? > > Interestingly enough, President Roosevelt urged the military combatants on > both sides to refrain from bombing cities or civilian populations. > Churchill and the French promised that only strictly military targets would > be bombed by their air forces. > Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to French West Africa (Algiers?) for protection when France was invaded. The British scuttled the entire French fleet at one fell swoop, to prevent them from falling into German hands and/or for fear that the Vichy French would use them in cooperation with the Germans, much to DeGaulle's consternation. All of this isn't for the purpose of defaming Churchill, incidentally. But it does show why secular history can be so confusing, and why "true" history sometimes has to be written differently. As Churchill himself put it, sometimes a truth is so vital that it has to be shored about with lies to protect it. In the end we rightly remember Churchill as a truly valiant figure, and choose to forget his foibles and his miserable disasters as a peacetime PM, and his crossing of party lines, the fact that the reason his famous speeches were given by an actor was probably because Churchill was too drunk, etc., etc. (The actor, incidentally, whose name escapes me, was best known at the time for a kind of Canadian connection, too, in a back-handed way -- he played the voice of Winnie the Pooh in a children's program on the BBC). My favourite portrait of him is by Karsh, who died this last year, incidentally. At the time he wasn't too well known -- just an Armenian immigrant living in Ottawa trying to make a go as a photographer. Churchill was running on a tight schedule and didn't like posing for portraits as it was. Karsh was nervous, he related in his memoirs, and was fussing with the camera, when Churchill started to growl a bit, in impatience. On impulse, Karsh snatched the omnipresent cigar out of Churchill's mouth and immediately opened the shutter -- and that's how he captured that famous scowl. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
It's not your crosshairs that worry me as long as you can't read a map "Kill-a-watts? Is that a light bulb or a target?" "I want gas, not leeders..." "How come all these up-and-down liney things on the map crowd so close together up here?" Paul Osborne wrote: > >(plus the usual Canuckistani comeback, which is that given what y'all > are [not] > >taught about geography in school, we have no need to fear, because we > know you'd > >have to find us first...) > > Hey Marc; would you mind stepping out of my cross hairs as you are > blocking my vision. ;-) > > Paul O > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Very good! Another week in Moose Jaw for our boy genius :-) (You realize, of course, that Moose Jaw is our equivalent of a Fargo joke -- you know, first prize is one week, second prize is two weeks. Actually, it's also the site of an airbase where our military pilots are trained. My cousin's husband, who was a SARtech out of Gander, NF, is now there learning to fly C-130's. He's tired of rotary wing and wants to switch to fixed wing. Flying Hercs will get him to more exotic locations, too, besides his annual simulator training trip to California. We put the base there because there's nothing to hit that's higher than a grain elevator) Incidentally, I'm going from memory, but I believe Westphalia was or is an outer suburb of Berlin, but I could be confusing it with another raid. (It's a little confusing because it's also the name of a German province, known in German as Westfalen, but the term "Westphalia" is used sometimes, too, because it's from the Latin form of the name; that's how we got our English form of many German names). ObPersonal: speaking of the modern-day province of Rheinland-Westfalen (Rhineland - Westphalia) my sister was born in a British military hospital in Iserlohn, near Dortmund, in 1957, while the occupation zones were still delineated (Canadians were part of the British zone). Some years ago my Dad gave me his remaining British military occupation money, which was pre-decimal, for a collection of bank notes I put together. It was kind of funny to see this stuff -- notes for as low as sixpence, but that could buy a pair of nylons at the military store in those days. We lived for two years at Möhnesee, where my father, who was fluent in German and was in the Provost Corps Special Investigations Group, among other things did debriefing of people who survived a famous incident which is not well-known today in Germany, but is very widely known in the West because of a Hollywood movie that was made about it. Anybody know what happened at Möhnesee? Hint: a "see" (pronounced "zay") is a lake, but can also refer to an "artificial lake." My Mom says it was an idyllic place, incidentally. Close to the first modern ogilopolis, the Ruhr Valley, via autobahn, but up in the foothills of the Rothaargebirge (an Appalachian-like area with a similar climate as the mid-Appalachians in the US, say around Virginia or E. Pennsylvania or so). Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > >Trivia question: who was the first country to launch a raid on residential > >areas > >in an enemy country in WWII, and what was the city involved? > > Great Britain, May 11, 1940. They bombed the quiet peaceful town known as > Westphalia which was miles from any front. The historian J. F. P. Veale > notes in his book, _Advance To Barbarism_, that Great Britain's bombing of > Westphalia was "the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of > civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy > combatant forces." > > -- -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
This from the guy who wants to elect President Hinckley and curse with him a politician's job? ;-) Paul Osborne wrote: > Jon wisely said: > >Those who want to fault the US for what we > >did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame > the > >nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well. > > And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was > wise and the making of more nuclear weapons was even wiser. Thank > goodness we have a government that wants to protect us against our > enemies and thank goodness President Truman was not a coward. Thank > goodness there is a separation between church and state!! > > Paul O > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > > Only $9.95 per month! > > Visit www.juno.com > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely, however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely. Stacy. At 05:54 PM 11/09/2002 -0600, you wrote: Jon wisely said: >Those who want to fault the US for what we >did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame the >nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well. And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was wise and the making of more nuclear weapons was even wiser. Thank goodness we have a government that wants to protect us against our enemies and thank goodness President Truman was not a coward. Thank goodness there is a separation between church and state!! Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now? -- Steven Montgomery At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote: Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in the second week of January. Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the pilot, and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the Enola Gay here) Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > >Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, > >although I'm > >sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that > >Nagasaki > >wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was > >clouded over > >that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the > >historical centre > >of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: > >what was > >the original target? > > The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. > Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a > nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three > separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured > by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is > history. > > -- > Steven Montgomery > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > --Steven W. Mosher > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on" Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Jon wisely said: >Those who want to fault the US for what we >did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame the >nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well. And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was wise and the making of more nuclear weapons was even wiser. Thank goodness we have a government that wants to protect us against our enemies and thank goodness President Truman was not a coward. Thank goodness there is a separation between church and state!! Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>(plus the usual Canuckistani comeback, which is that given what y'all are [not] >taught about geography in school, we have no need to fear, because we know you'd >have to find us first...) Hey Marc; would you mind stepping out of my cross hairs as you are blocking my vision. ;-) Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: Trivia question: what major Ally's naval assets were destroyed by another Ally, and why? This was a harder one, but I think I remember it was the Germans who scuttled Italy's ships to prevent them from falling into Allied hands. Am I right? -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: Trivia question: who first broke neutrality in WWII? Great Britain, September 3, 1940, ostensibly to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland. However after the war Poland was divvied up to the Soviets--so what the heck was WWII fought for? Interestingly enough, President Roosevelt urged the military combatants on both sides to refrain from bombing cities or civilian populations. Churchill and the French promised that only strictly military targets would be bombed by their air forces. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: Trivia question: who was the first country to launch a raid on residential areas in an enemy country in WWII, and what was the city involved? Great Britain, May 11, 1940. They bombed the quiet peaceful town known as Westphalia which was miles from any front. The historian J. F. P. Veale notes in his book, _Advance To Barbarism_, that Great Britain's bombing of Westphalia was "the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces." -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
It's ironic, but these things go in fads. Beer, if it's made properly, is actually a good source of calcium, and the reason it probably has a high level of radiation in many brands is, as I think Olympia's and up here Kokanee's, slogan puts it, "it's the water." You're right about cooling water, which never comes in contact with any isotopes, but only with the outer surfaces of hot containment areas, which are radiation-free -- they have to be for the sake of the workers, who otherwise would get too much career-long exposure. There are several ways of measuring radiation, and I won't get into the details here, but let's just say that A x B = C, where C is your total load, and it's what you should be concerned with. A is the amount of radiation at any given time, and B is the length of time, cumulatively, that you get exposed to. And water from glaciers and mountainous areas tend to have a higher level of radiation. Radium Hot Springs is a resort town on the BC-AB border -- it used to be believed that a small amount of radium was actually curative (er, no pun intended). Some very common sources of radiation exposure that most people don't know about, which are far more dangerous than living near a nuclear reactor (all things being equal) are: * #1 by far is airplane travel. Airplanes typically cruise at 10 000 metres, where there is less atmosphere and therefore less protection against high-energy, ionizing radiation from the sun and from the delta quadrant (joke; space in general -- cosmic rays). * Living in Salt Lake, Calgary or Denver, or any other high-altitude city. Same as above, only not as bad, but you spend more time in your bed, playing with the kids, wasting your life in chat rooms and eating at the table, than on planes and remember the B factor as per A x B = C. * Going into your basement (that lets off the Californians ;-)) where your chances of being exposed to radon is higher. Radon is, a radioactive gas which is a naturally occurring element that comes from trace amounts of various isotopes in the soil and the concrete around you. * Smoking. Tobacco leaves often contain isotopes for some reason which I've long forgotten. So if the tar and the nicotine don't get you, dayglo lungs will. * Living anywhere near an iron, nickel, silver or gold mine or in either a mountainous region or on pre-cambrian rock (as in the vast Laurentian Shield that protects us here from Toronto's effusions, but which extends well into New York state and Michigan and Minnesota and Wisconsin). More radioisotopes which occur naturally. There are areas near Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, where naturally occurring uranium deposits, which tend to occur near nickle/cobalt deposits for geological reasons, where there's evidence of prehistoric fission reactions having occurred. I could go on, but those are the worst ones. Oh, I suppose I should also mention mother's milk. Because mammary glands are actually modified sweat glands, they tend to produce milk in a way that's similar to how the body produces sweat. What they have in common that's relevant here is that toxins tend to build up in both sweat and mother's milk, so if you've ingested radioactive substances as a mother, your milk will tend to concentrate them. Have I gotten everyone in a real tizzy yet? Our problem is we're not good at evaluating actual risk. We tend to put far more risk on unknown factors, rather than those which are probably more dangerous, but which are known quantities, and therefore familiar to us. The frightful mien again. Jon Spencer wrote: > If any level of radiation will kill us, then you need to move near a nuclear > power plant and stay away from beer. it seems that there is 13 times more > radiation in beer than there is in the cooling water coming out of the Nuke > power plant I can see from my house. > > So you see, the word of wisdom was clearly correct in warning us against > beer but not against nuke power plants. > > Jon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Cobabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:08 PM > Subject: RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan > > > > > Jon Spencer wrote: > > --- > > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the > > envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much > > greater. > > --- > > > > Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does > > it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting casualties, if > > it puts your enemy in a panic crises? Everyone knows that any level of > > radiation will kill us all instantly, or cause us to die of cancer > > within a few months. Even the people who live in the neighborhood
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I just thought of something else, in addition to my original response. I should actually give in on this. For 3 reasons: 1. I was wrong when I said AECL Med Prods (now known as Theratronics, and along with Nordion, part of MDS) was one of the few sources of radioactive caesium isotopes. I was in a time warp when I wrote that. They no longer supply it and haven't for some time. Therein lies part of the problem, as it happens. In my day we had replaced caesium units with the far superior Co60 units, but were still maintaining old caesium units, but except for a few small private clinics in the US, caesium was, in the late 80s/early 90s, when I was in the biz, only used in 3rd world countries. And therein, as I say, lies part of the problem, because 3rd world disposal standards aren't exactly up to snuff, meaning the stuff's relatively easy -- too easy -- to get, and it's also easier to shield against, so easier to get through gamma ray detectors at ports (whose budget -- the inspection division -- incidentally and highly ironically, has, at least at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- been drastically cut back by the Bush administration but I digress). 2. For reason #3, you are in spirit correct in the sense that it's highly unlikely caesium would be used in a dirty bomb, so the more I warn against it, the more I am, in fact, guilty of fearmongering, as you say. 3. For reasons I won't get into in public* there are "better" alternatives available to terrorists**, alternatives which are easier to handle, more "productive", and easier to package, deliver and hard to detect (although not impossible -- let's hope that your new cabinet ministry doesn't suffer from the usual rule of bureaucracy, which tends to "dumb down" to a low, if not lowest, common denominator. Here's to hoping they listen to their science and military advisors and get some proper detection equipment at cargo-handling facilities. X-ray detectors and some basic AI software go a long ways). * The NSA is way behind in their efforts to read everybody's email, and I stick to the "international English" spelling of caesium in the vain hope that their filters are set for the US spelling, but in any case, if I start mentioning some of the isotopes that are far better for terrorist use in dirty bombs there is a chance I'd get a friendly visit from our local CSIS officer, as they work with the NSA. We have free speech, too, in theory -- as you do (in theory) -- but there's no sense asking for trouble. ** As I mention from time to time, people who read my emails would normally have no indication I am suffering from a neurological disorder (unless you consider liberalism to be a mental illness[don't answer that]), but I always look over my posts relatively carefully since in speech I often make substitutions for words, because there's some rewiring going on in my brain, to make a long story short. But I actually wrote "tourists" instead of "terrorists" in the first draft of my post. I thought that was pretty funny -- it's like suffering from spoonerism (sputtering from soonerisms?) Jon Spencer wrote: > Sorry, Marc, but you are wrong. This information comes from several experts > in this field who deal with the actual (expected) contaminants. Neither you > nor I are experts, so from my perspective, you lose. Spreading hysteria > must be a Canadian sport, which has filtered down to the anti-nuke folks in > the US! :-) > > Jon > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > > It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which > get > absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is > even > worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use > is in > tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed into a triple-welded > cylinder about 3.5 cm long and 1.5 - 2 cm across. > > I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir > Sanford > Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a > display > of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder and > put > it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security -- > this > kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One > would > hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, but > it ate > away most of his genitals and lower abdomen skin. Very gruesome. > > If you get it in your lungs there's no immediate problem, but your chance of > getting lung cancer skyrockets. > > Jon Spencer wrote: > > > Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of > view. > > If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete > shower > > (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no > > long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a > really > > big deal either. > > > > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I *am* an industry expert, Jon. I spent 5 years working for the medical products division of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., one of the few suppliers of radioactive caesium still left (and we even know how to spell it right!). Caesium contamination is only easy to take care of if the decon/detox is initiated immediately, if it's clear that it's caesium, and if it's not contaminated with something else (like the dusty remains of a big skyscraper). So go back and tell your "several experts in this field" that I'd be happy to correspond directly with them. Ask them about the children in Brazil who got contaminated by caesium when they discovered discarded vials in a city dump near Sao Paulo a few years ago. If they know about that, I'll talk to them. If they don't, they're no experts in my book. Jon Spencer wrote: > Sorry, Marc, but you are wrong. This information comes from several experts > in this field who deal with the actual (expected) contaminants. Neither you > nor I are experts, so from my perspective, you lose. Spreading hysteria > must be a Canadian sport, which has filtered down to the anti-nuke folks in > the US! :-) > > Jon > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > > It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which > get > absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is > even > worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use > is in > tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed into a triple-welded > cylinder about 3.5 cm long and 1.5 - 2 cm across. > > I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir > Sanford > Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a > display > of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder and > put > it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security -- > this > kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One > would > hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, but > it ate > away most of his genitals and lower abdomen skin. Very gruesome. > > If you get it in your lungs there's no immediate problem, but your chance of > getting lung cancer skyrockets. > > Jon Spencer wrote: > > > Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of > view. > > If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete > shower > > (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no > > long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a > really > > big deal either. > > > > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos > > have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. > > > > But that's a topic for another thread, one that I have begun doing > detailed > > and extensive research on. You will be the first to see the fruits of > that > > research - sort of a test market! > > > > Jon > > > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > > I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from > > so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a > messy > > radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). > > > > > > / > > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > > / > > > > -- > Marc A. Schindler > Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > > "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will > pick > himself up and continue on" - Winston Churchill > > Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the > author > solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's > employer, > nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. > > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > / > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
If any level of radiation will kill us, then you need to move near a nuclear power plant and stay away from beer. it seems that there is 13 times more radiation in beer than there is in the cooling water coming out of the Nuke power plant I can see from my house. So you see, the word of wisdom was clearly correct in warning us against beer but not against nuke power plants. Jon - Original Message - From: "Jim Cobabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan > > Jon Spencer wrote: > --- > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the > envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much > greater. > --- > > Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does > it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting casualties, if > it puts your enemy in a panic crises? Everyone knows that any level of > radiation will kill us all instantly, or cause us to die of cancer > within a few months. Even the people who live in the neighborhood of > the Three Mile Island reactor disaster are still trying to sue because > they all have cancer. The recently completed study indicating that > there is no greater risk of cancer in that area means nothing. > > Spreading fear and panic was also the point of the anthrax attacks last > year. Of course it is seldom recognized that anthrax is a common > organism in nature. Many of us have fairly frequent contact with > anthrax vectors. There are even occasional infections. But nobody > seems to feel too scared about that. Probably because, as with "dirty > bomb" contamination, the most effective prophylactic measure is > attention to regular bathing habits. > > I remember when the Denver airport was shut down last year because > someone discovered a white powder leaking from a package. It turned out > to be vanilla pudding mix. > > --- > Mij Ebaboc > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Sorry, Marc, but you are wrong. This information comes from several experts in this field who deal with the actual (expected) contaminants. Neither you nor I are experts, so from my perspective, you lose. Spreading hysteria must be a Canadian sport, which has filtered down to the anti-nuke folks in the US! :-) Jon Marc A. Schindler wrote: It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which get absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is even worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use is in tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed into a triple-welded cylinder about 3.5 cm long and 1.5 - 2 cm across. I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a display of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder and put it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security -- this kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One would hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, but it ate away most of his genitals and lower abdomen skin. Very gruesome. If you get it in your lungs there's no immediate problem, but your chance of getting lung cancer skyrockets. Jon Spencer wrote: > Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view. > If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower > (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no > long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a really > big deal either. > > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos > have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. > > But that's a topic for another thread, one that I have begun doing detailed > and extensive research on. You will be the first to see the fruits of that > research - sort of a test market! > > Jon > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from > so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a messy > radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on" - Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in the second week of January. Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the pilot, and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the Enola Gay here) Steven Montgomery wrote: > At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: > > >Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, > >although I'm > >sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that > >Nagasaki > >wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was > >clouded over > >that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the > >historical centre > >of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: > >what was > >the original target? > > The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. > Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a > nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three > separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured > by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is > history. > > -- > Steven Montgomery > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of > selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American > politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." > --Steven W. Mosher > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Dresden was not an industrial city. You may be confusing it with Leipzig, which got off relatively light. What Dresden was was a centre of transportation for central Europe, a transfer point for many trains and highways. It was chockfull of refugees when the RAF bombed it. What little heavy industry it had was out in suburbs to the west and north. South and east the terrain is too mountainous. Hamburg at least had a military point -- Dresden was pure terrorism in the neutral sense of the word: we were trying to demoralize the German population and force an overthrow of Hitler. Trivia question: who was the first country to launch a raid on residential areas in an enemy country in WWII, and what was the city involved? Trivia question: who first broke neutrality in WWII? Trivia question: what major Ally's naval assets were destroyed by another Ally, and why? Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Steven- > > Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United > > States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. > > Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes "moral high ground" in a war. > Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus > legitimate targets, just like Dresden. If the US was going for > demoralizing civilian casualties, why didn't they nuke Tokyo? > > Since 1945, there has been a moratorium in usage of nuclear weapons > during war, one which the US has scrupulously observed, and in fact has > even taken a lead role in carving out such "international law". In 1945, > no such law existed. It's anachronistic (and worse) to try to hold the > US of 1945 to a code of conduct that didn't exist at the time. > Except for one thing: the US has never accepted "refusal of first right." Which is to say, they have not promised never to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a war. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
You should be more concerned about wax buildup ;-) Stacy Smith wrote: > Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood > the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island. > > Stacy. > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Stacy Smith wrote: > Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even > though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated, > there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love > to come to us through Canada. This is misleading. Pat Buchanan, just to take the latest celebrity to express an uninformed opinionon this, doesn't know what he's talking about. ALL of the terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks on NY and the Pentagon came directly to the U.S., and not through Canada. Your INS was even giving green cards to dead people. The reason the Canadian connection makes the news is sheer numbers. We have a border that's thousands of kms long and which nobody could patrol adequately, so it's relatively easy to cross, and far more people cross it than come in via ports or airports from overseas -- only Mexico comes close. We have far more terrorists in Canada who have come here from the U.S., but of course you guys never hear that on your news (and it's not in Buchanan's interests to tell you, pitched as he is to the trailer park trash counterpart to Howard Stern's New York demographic). The one difference we *do* have, besides having a much longer coastline than you guys do, and one tenth the population density, is that we still welcome immigrants more freely than the U.S. It's far easier to get a work permit here, and permanent immigrant status, and also citizenship, than in the U.S. That also includes refugees, and no screening system is perfect, so we end up probably letting in more than our fair share of bad apples, proportionately speaking. > They take up residence here like normal > ordinary citizens. We could have many of them living with us > undetected. We could have them guarding our nuclear facilities, etc. > > Then there's also the chemical and biological variations combined with > nuclear capability. > > Stacy. > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
We (aka the real world, the rest of the world, etc.) are not afraid that your troops' military training isn't up to snuff*, we just hope your CiC knows that it's "ready, aim, fire," not "ready, fire, aim." ;-) *As I'm tempted to suggest to Jonah Greenberg, perhaps we really *do* need a good invading up here. After all, you'd probably kill fewer of our troops if you were actually trying. (plus the usual Canuckistani comeback, which is that given what y'all are [not] taught about geography in school, we have no need to fear, because we know you'd have to find us first...) Paul Osborne wrote: > >The primary objective is to kill people and > >break things, with more success than the enemy. Morality aside, this is > > >the reality of warfare. > > Amen. Kill the enemy!! > > That is what I learned when I served in the US Army for a brief period. > > Paul O > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > > Only $9.95 per month! > > Visit www.juno.com > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I noted on this list many years ago, that BH Liddell Hart wrote a book in the late 60's or early 70's, I think, called "A History of the Second World War" in which much of this was disclosed. The Japanese tried to get to the US by going through the Soviets, who, for their own imperialistic reasons, decided not to forward the request. And all that other stuff. But this was a back channel from a single small point in the Japanese gov't, not from those who were actually in power. It is sort of like a sub-diplomat in Stalin's gov't sending out a back-channel request. It would not have been successful. Had the Japanese wanted to surrender, there were many ways that they could have sent a secret message to Washington. They did not. They could have contacted Switzerland or Sweden or Lichtenstein, for heavens sake, but they did not. If they wanted to surrender, why were they fighting so hard, and continuing to commit atrocities against anyone they could find? But my whole point is that it is SO easy to sit back and second guess what might have been or could have been or whatever 57 years ago. But all those who do this are not in the position that President Truman was. Tens of thousands of Americans had died, and he was viewing the possibility of tens of thousands more dying. He had a way to stop the war. Why on earth didn't the Japanese cry uncle after the first bomb if they were so eager to stop the hostilities? Those who want to fault the US for what we did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame the nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well. The US is no where near perfect, unless you consider all other nations in the world, in which case we look pretty good. Ingratitude is one of the biggest sins there is, so why should I be surprised that it is so rampant, even on this list? (I put on my flame retardant suit before uttering this truth!) Jon > -Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_- > > This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the > > dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace > > table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this > > historical view, like the original commentary intended for the > > exhibit, is not supported by the facts. > > Just to be clear: If the net effect of dropping two atomic bombs was to > kill 100,000 of the enemy and thereby save _one_ American life, it would > have been the moral duty of the commander-in-chief to do so. I doubt you > can convince me that Americans would not have died had the bombs not > been dropped; therefore, in my moral calculus, at least, dropping the > bombs was the only moral decision Truman could have made. > > > But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as > > early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack > > on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the > > fateful use of the atomic bombs. > > I see. So, the enemy starts asking about "peace" twenty or so weeks > after taking out your strategic harbor, and therefore you're supposed to > believe they're sincere. Do I have that right? > > > Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost > > a year before the conflict ended." > > Um, that would have been 1944. What happened to six months after Pearl > Harbor? > > > In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the > > immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until > > such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against > > Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on > > civilian populations. > > Yes, Mark presented a web site detailing this same evidence a few years > back. Interesting reading, perhaps with some truth to it. But in the > end, it's bogus. All Japan had to do was to broadcast their > unconditional surrender and they would have been spared. Blockade or no, > Japan struck first and picked the fight, committing unspeakable > atrocities in the warfare. If they didn't want to "lose face" by open > surrender, that is their own fault, no the US's. > > > Toshikasu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Office, > > delivered a highly confidential message to the interned > > British ambassador, Sir Robert Craigi. It contained a > > "discreet hint regarding the eventual restoration of peace." > > Emanating from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo, this message > > stated, "Should it happen that the British Government became > > desirous of discussing or negotiating peace they would find > > the Japanese Government ready to be helpful." > > Yet we mannerless Americans, with no grasp whatsoever of the subtle > nuances of civilized etiquette, just went on ahead and bombed them, all > because of a little misunderstanding over a Hawaiian naval base. Yes, I > see your point. > > > In his 1952 book Fleet Admiral King, Admiral Ernest J. King > > reported President Roosevelt's 1942 understanding that "by > > the application of sea power, Japan could be
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
You know you have been hit because there is a great big explosion, and the guys with the Geiger counters say pops! That's how you know. What are you talking about with the Japanese??? Do you actually know what a dirty bomb is? It is a conventional explosive with radioactive material surrounding it. It is not a nuclear explosion. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > Then why weren't the Japanese able to overcome the effects? The key here, > I believe, is how would we know we had been hit to take the showers? Plus, > what if they're laced with bioweapons? / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote: Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, although I'm sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that Nagasaki wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was clouded over that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the historical centre of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: what was the original target? The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center. Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on a nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three separate passes. The secondary target was Nagasaki which was also obscured by clouds but after a couple of passes the clouds parted, and the rest is history. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island. Stacy. At 07:08 PM 11/09/2002 +, you wrote: Jon Spencer wrote: --- Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. --- Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting casualties, if it puts your enemy in a panic crises? Everyone knows that any level of radiation will kill us all instantly, or cause us to die of cancer within a few months. Even the people who live in the neighborhood of the Three Mile Island reactor disaster are still trying to sue because they all have cancer. The recently completed study indicating that there is no greater risk of cancer in that area means nothing. Spreading fear and panic was also the point of the anthrax attacks last year. Of course it is seldom recognized that anthrax is a common organism in nature. Many of us have fairly frequent contact with anthrax vectors. There are even occasional infections. But nobody seems to feel too scared about that. Probably because, as with "dirty bomb" contamination, the most effective prophylactic measure is attention to regular bathing habits. I remember when the Denver airport was shut down last year because someone discovered a white powder leaking from a package. It turned out to be vanilla pudding mix. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Jon Spencer wrote: --- Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. --- Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting casualties, if it puts your enemy in a panic crises? Everyone knows that any level of radiation will kill us all instantly, or cause us to die of cancer within a few months. Even the people who live in the neighborhood of the Three Mile Island reactor disaster are still trying to sue because they all have cancer. The recently completed study indicating that there is no greater risk of cancer in that area means nothing. Spreading fear and panic was also the point of the anthrax attacks last year. Of course it is seldom recognized that anthrax is a common organism in nature. Many of us have fairly frequent contact with anthrax vectors. There are even occasional infections. But nobody seems to feel too scared about that. Probably because, as with "dirty bomb" contamination, the most effective prophylactic measure is attention to regular bathing habits. I remember when the Denver airport was shut down last year because someone discovered a white powder leaking from a package. It turned out to be vanilla pudding mix. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated, there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love to come to us through Canada. They take up residence here like normal ordinary citizens. We could have many of them living with us undetected. We could have them guarding our nuclear facilities, etc. Then there's also the chemical and biological variations combined with nuclear capability. Stacy. At 11:34 AM 11/09/2002 -0700, you wrote: There's a difference, Stacy, between a true thermonuclear bomb and a so-called dirty bomb. A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material around. Depending on the circumstances, this can be quite deadly, and is hard to clean up after, and its effects can be pernicious, but are relatively small-scale, and the structural damage is largely confined to the initial conventional explosion. Thermonuclear bombs, which come roughly in two types -- fission-based and the more powerful fusion-based -- actually obtain their very destructive power from nuclear chain reactions, to oversimplify a bit. But the point is they are far more destructive to property, to those in the blast zone, and in the long run, to many others. The type of material used in true thermonuclear devices has a longer half-life (remains radioactive longer), and also gives off more energetic gamma radiation (which is more dangerous), and can contaminate clouds which carry it long distances, where it falls as part of the rain (so-called "fallout"). Thermonuclear devices depend a lot on the extremely powerful shock wave they create (the explosion is more "intense"), so are often detonated while still in the air, so the shock wave can travel further, not inhibited by horizontal vector barriers like buildings. OTOH, ground-detonated bombs cause more fallout. One interesting variant is the so-called "neutron bomb" which doesn't have much of a shockwave, but unleashes a spray of ionizing (very energetic) neutrons. So it spares the buildings but kills the people. It's the ultimate "clean bomb" so to speak. The two bombs used over Japan were small and crude by today's standards, and used conventional explosives to drive two pieces of carefully-shaped radioactive metal (uranium, plutonium) together, causing a fission chain reaction, which is highly "exothermic" (releases a lot of energy in a short period of time). Fusion bombs use the same fuel process as the sun: hydrogen is fused together by another, initial explosion, to form helium, which is even more exothermic than fission reactions. One substance that's unlikely to be used in dirty bombs, incidentally, is plutonium. Plutonium is actually not that toxic (IF -- and naturally this is a big "if") you ignore its radioactivity; mercury, lead and cadmium are far more toxic. You could actually eat food with plutonium, and it would just pass through your body. The problem is when it's in tiny particle form (as in fallout) and you breathe it in. It sort of turns your lungs into radioactive organs, which can, of course, be very destructive to body tissue, either in the short term (radiation burns, which can be fatal if they're extensive enough) or cancer in the medium to long term. The problem with plutonium, as far as terrorists are concerned, is that it's a very rare metal and hard to come by, and even harder to handle without damage to yourself. It requires very expensive facilities to treat, such as a research or military reactor. Canada, just as an example, was a pioneer in atomic technology*, supplying the uranium that went into the Manhattan Project, which produced the bomb. The best known Canadian in the field was Ernest Rutherford (although I don't think he worked on the Manhatten Project per se -- but I think he was still at McGill by then, and might have acted as an advisor; I'd have to check). But while we have a lot of power reactors (especially in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick), the only research reactors we have that are capable of handling plutonium are at Chalk River ON and Whiteshell MB. The former I've been to. It's upriver of Ottawa, and I once gave a lecture there on the medical applications of Cobalt 60. The latter is NE of Winnipeg on the edge of the Canadian (or Laurentian) Shield. Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, although I'm sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that Nagasaki wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was clouded over that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the historical centre of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: what was the original target? *we invented the cobalt machine, long a mainstay in radiation therapy in cancer, for instance, and the world's largest supplier of medical isotopes is still
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
There's a difference, Stacy, between a true thermonuclear bomb and a so-called
dirty bomb. A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive
material around. Depending on the circumstances, this can be quite deadly, and is
hard to clean up after, and its effects can be pernicious, but are relatively
small-scale, and the structural damage is largely confined to the initial
conventional explosion. Thermonuclear bombs, which come roughly in two types --
fission-based and the more powerful fusion-based -- actually obtain their very
destructive power from nuclear chain reactions, to oversimplify a bit. But the
point is they are far more destructive to property, to those in the blast zone,
and in the long run, to many others. The type of material used in true
thermonuclear devices has a longer half-life (remains radioactive longer), and
also gives off more energetic gamma radiation (which is more dangerous), and can
contaminate clouds which carry it long distances, where it falls as part of the
rain (so-called "fallout").
Thermonuclear devices depend a lot on the extremely powerful shock wave they
create (the explosion is more "intense"), so are often detonated while still in
the air, so the shock wave can travel further, not inhibited by horizontal vector
barriers like buildings. OTOH, ground-detonated bombs cause more fallout. One
interesting variant is the so-called "neutron bomb" which doesn't have much of a
shockwave, but unleashes a spray of ionizing (very energetic) neutrons. So it
spares the buildings but kills the people. It's the ultimate "clean bomb" so to
speak.
The two bombs used over Japan were small and crude by today's standards, and used
conventional explosives to drive two pieces of carefully-shaped radioactive metal
(uranium, plutonium) together, causing a fission chain reaction, which is highly
"exothermic" (releases a lot of energy in a short period of time). Fusion bombs
use the same fuel process as the sun: hydrogen is fused together by another,
initial explosion, to form helium, which is even more exothermic than fission
reactions.
One substance that's unlikely to be used in dirty bombs, incidentally, is
plutonium. Plutonium is actually not that toxic (IF -- and naturally this is a big
"if") you ignore its radioactivity; mercury, lead and cadmium are far more toxic.
You could actually eat food with plutonium, and it would just pass through your
body. The problem is when it's in tiny particle form (as in fallout) and you
breathe it in. It sort of turns your lungs into radioactive organs, which can, of
course, be very destructive to body tissue, either in the short term (radiation
burns, which can be fatal if they're extensive enough) or cancer in the medium to
long term. The problem with plutonium, as far as terrorists are concerned, is that
it's a very rare metal and hard to come by, and even harder to handle without
damage to yourself. It requires very expensive facilities to treat, such as a
research or military reactor. Canada, just as an example, was a pioneer in atomic
technology*, supplying the uranium that went into the Manhattan Project, which
produced the bomb. The best known Canadian in the field was Ernest Rutherford
(although I don't think he worked on the Manhatten Project per se -- but I think
he was still at McGill by then, and might have acted as an advisor; I'd have to
check). But while we have a lot of power reactors (especially in Ontario, Quebec
and New Brunswick), the only research reactors we have that are capable of
handling plutonium are at Chalk River ON and Whiteshell MB. The former I've been
to. It's upriver of Ottawa, and I once gave a lecture there on the medical
applications of Cobalt 60. The latter is NE of Winnipeg on the edge of the
Canadian (or Laurentian) Shield.
Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up, although I'm
sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that Nagasaki
wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was clouded over
that day, so Nagasaki got hit. The irony is that Nagasaki is the historical centre
of Japan's Christian community. So I guess today's trivia question is: what was
the original target?
*we invented the cobalt machine, long a mainstay in radiation therapy in cancer,
for instance, and the world's largest supplier of medical isotopes is still a
Canadian company, Nordion, in Kanata ON (a suburb of Ottawa). They're part of MDS,
a large Canadian medical services company based in Toronto. If you hang around
Ottawa, you can see Nordion's white trucks rushing isotopes to the airport so they
can be flown on private jets directly to big tertiary care hospitals around the
world, but especially the US (many of these isotopes, made of very exotic
materials like molybdenum ("molly" for short) have very short halflifes so have
to be used within a few days). I used to watch technicians working behind
metre-thick glass (filled with mineral oil), wor
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>The primary objective is to kill people and >break things, with more success than the enemy. Morality aside, this is >the reality of warfare. Amen. Kill the enemy!! That is what I learned when I served in the US Army for a brief period. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States >maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a >"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same >purpose. Stephen was right, Steven. Your demonstration idea is too risky. We had to do what we did when we had the opportunity. A proper demonstration was given to the Japanese and they reacted in the only responsible way they could--they surrendered. I'm grateful that the American leaders of that era had the courage to do what had to be done. Once again, American military intelligence (top secret) unknown to the rest of us civilians including church leaders was a deciding factor in carrying out a duty that must be performed. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
-Steven- > Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United > States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes "moral high ground" in a war. Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus legitimate targets, just like Dresden. If the US was going for demoralizing civilian casualties, why didn't they nuke Tokyo? Since 1945, there has been a moratorium in usage of nuclear weapons during war, one which the US has scrupulously observed, and in fact has even taken a lead role in carving out such "international law". In 1945, no such law existed. It's anachronistic (and worse) to try to hold the US of 1945 to a code of conduct that didn't exist at the time. > I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have > accomplished the same purpose. Maybe, or maybe not. In either case, I think this suggestion is naive at best. Developing nuclear weapons was hugely expensive -- so now the US is supposed to give up its advantage of surprise by openly announcing to the enemy its secret weapon, giving them a demonstration, no less? That's simply not how it's done. I doubt any intelligent and honest military commander would have done any such thing. To repeat: Japan was the aggressor. They killed many of our men and women in battle, and tortured and killed many other POWs. They committed atrocities that are even now being discovered, disclosed, and rued. At any time, they could have openly surrendered and been spared the further consequences of war. They chose not to. That is not the US' fault, no matter how you slice it. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>It might depress you further to know that the United States was >instrumental in turning over nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Major Racey >Jordan wrote a book entitled, _Major Jordan's Diaries_, about his part, >unbeknownst to him at the time, of delivering weapons grade uranium, plans, >diagrams and other supplies to the Soviets. Yes, I am totally depressed with what I am hearing. I see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Nothing is really wrong. President Bush will take care of everything. So there. :-/ Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which get absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is even worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use is in tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed into a triple-welded cylinder about 3.5 cm long and 1.5 - 2 cm across. I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a display of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder and put it in his pocket (it was a lesson on the need for proper storage security -- this kind of incident would be unthinkable in an OECD country's hospital. One would hope, anyway). He only had it for a day before he gave it to a doctor, but it ate away most of his genitals and lower abdomen skin. Very gruesome. If you get it in your lungs there's no immediate problem, but your chance of getting lung cancer skyrockets. Jon Spencer wrote: > Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view. > If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower > (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no > long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a really > big deal either. > > Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos > have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. > > But that's a topic for another thread, one that I have begun doing detailed > and extensive research on. You will be the first to see the fruits of that > research - sort of a test market! > > Jon > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from > so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a messy > radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Steven Montgomery wrote: --- Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same purpose. --- I don't know who was morally right or wrong in WWII, but I do understand the philosophy of war. The primary objective is to kill people and break things, with more success than the enemy. Morality aside, this is the reality of warfare. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Stephen, Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same purpose. -- Steven Montgomery At 01:01 AM 11/9/2002, you wrote: -Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_- > This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the > dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace > table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this > historical view, like the original commentary intended for the > exhibit, is not supported by the facts. Just to be clear: If the net effect of dropping two atomic bombs was to kill 100,000 of the enemy and thereby save _one_ American life, it would have been the moral duty of the commander-in-chief to do so. I doubt you can convince me that Americans would not have died had the bombs not been dropped; therefore, in my moral calculus, at least, dropping the bombs was the only moral decision Truman could have made. > But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as > early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack > on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the > fateful use of the atomic bombs. I see. So, the enemy starts asking about "peace" twenty or so weeks after taking out your strategic harbor, and therefore you're supposed to believe they're sincere. Do I have that right? > Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost > a year before the conflict ended." Um, that would have been 1944. What happened to six months after Pearl Harbor? > In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the > immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until > such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against > Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on > civilian populations. Yes, Mark presented a web site detailing this same evidence a few years back. Interesting reading, perhaps with some truth to it. But in the end, it's bogus. All Japan had to do was to broadcast their unconditional surrender and they would have been spared. Blockade or no, Japan struck first and picked the fight, committing unspeakable atrocities in the warfare. If they didn't want to "lose face" by open surrender, that is their own fault, no the US's. > Toshikasu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Office, > delivered a highly confidential message to the interned > British ambassador, Sir Robert Craigi. It contained a > "discreet hint regarding the eventual restoration of peace." > Emanating from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo, this message > stated, "Should it happen that the British Government became > desirous of discussing or negotiating peace they would find > the Japanese Government ready to be helpful." Yet we mannerless Americans, with no grasp whatsoever of the subtle nuances of civilized etiquette, just went on ahead and bombed them, all because of a little misunderstanding over a Hawaiian naval base. Yes, I see your point. > In his 1952 book Fleet Admiral King, Admiral Ernest J. King > reported President Roosevelt's 1942 understanding that "by > the application of sea power, Japan could be forced to > surrender without an invasion of her home islands." This > attitude, shared by most of our military leaders, would > quickly be abandoned by the President. Instead, the costly > island-by-island advance of U.S. forces northward through > the Pacific continued. Hmmm. Might that be because Admiral King perhaps didn't witness the attempted taking of Italian peninsula, an Axis ally that actually had a lot of population who secretly sided with the Allies, and who in any case didn't plan to fight -- and that still resulted in a bloody campaign starting from the south and spanning the length of the country, a country roughly the size of Japan? If a comparatively "friendly foe" like Italy would be untakeable by naval forces alone and require extensive, bloody infantry warfare, why should the commander-in-chief have supposed that Japan, the original aggressor, a country whose pilots willingly sacrificed themselves to mess up carrier decks, would lay down and become docile under a similar situation? > The only unwavering stipulation sought by anyone in the > Japanese "peace party" was the retention of the Emperor and > the continuance of the monarchy. Perhaps the Japanese leaders ought to have realized that "unconditional" meant just that, and that they had long ago (say, 7 Dec 1941) forfeited any right to name the conditions of their surrender. This sort of post facto second-guessing lies somewhere between silly and offensive. If my son were fighting in the Pacific theater, I would demand his (and my) commander-in-chief to protect his life, even at the cost of the enemy's lives. That's the CIC's job, second in priority only to winning the war. As far as I can tell, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved both ends. To rep
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
-Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_- > This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the > dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace > table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this > historical view, like the original commentary intended for the > exhibit, is not supported by the facts. Just to be clear: If the net effect of dropping two atomic bombs was to kill 100,000 of the enemy and thereby save _one_ American life, it would have been the moral duty of the commander-in-chief to do so. I doubt you can convince me that Americans would not have died had the bombs not been dropped; therefore, in my moral calculus, at least, dropping the bombs was the only moral decision Truman could have made. > But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as > early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack > on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the > fateful use of the atomic bombs. I see. So, the enemy starts asking about "peace" twenty or so weeks after taking out your strategic harbor, and therefore you're supposed to believe they're sincere. Do I have that right? > Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost > a year before the conflict ended." Um, that would have been 1944. What happened to six months after Pearl Harbor? > In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the > immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until > such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against > Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on > civilian populations. Yes, Mark presented a web site detailing this same evidence a few years back. Interesting reading, perhaps with some truth to it. But in the end, it's bogus. All Japan had to do was to broadcast their unconditional surrender and they would have been spared. Blockade or no, Japan struck first and picked the fight, committing unspeakable atrocities in the warfare. If they didn't want to "lose face" by open surrender, that is their own fault, no the US's. > Toshikasu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Office, > delivered a highly confidential message to the interned > British ambassador, Sir Robert Craigi. It contained a > "discreet hint regarding the eventual restoration of peace." > Emanating from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo, this message > stated, "Should it happen that the British Government became > desirous of discussing or negotiating peace they would find > the Japanese Government ready to be helpful." Yet we mannerless Americans, with no grasp whatsoever of the subtle nuances of civilized etiquette, just went on ahead and bombed them, all because of a little misunderstanding over a Hawaiian naval base. Yes, I see your point. > In his 1952 book Fleet Admiral King, Admiral Ernest J. King > reported President Roosevelt's 1942 understanding that "by > the application of sea power, Japan could be forced to > surrender without an invasion of her home islands." This > attitude, shared by most of our military leaders, would > quickly be abandoned by the President. Instead, the costly > island-by-island advance of U.S. forces northward through > the Pacific continued. Hmmm. Might that be because Admiral King perhaps didn't witness the attempted taking of Italian peninsula, an Axis ally that actually had a lot of population who secretly sided with the Allies, and who in any case didn't plan to fight -- and that still resulted in a bloody campaign starting from the south and spanning the length of the country, a country roughly the size of Japan? If a comparatively "friendly foe" like Italy would be untakeable by naval forces alone and require extensive, bloody infantry warfare, why should the commander-in-chief have supposed that Japan, the original aggressor, a country whose pilots willingly sacrificed themselves to mess up carrier decks, would lay down and become docile under a similar situation? > The only unwavering stipulation sought by anyone in the > Japanese "peace party" was the retention of the Emperor and > the continuance of the monarchy. Perhaps the Japanese leaders ought to have realized that "unconditional" meant just that, and that they had long ago (say, 7 Dec 1941) forfeited any right to name the conditions of their surrender. This sort of post facto second-guessing lies somewhere between silly and offensive. If my son were fighting in the Pacific theater, I would demand his (and my) commander-in-chief to protect his life, even at the cost of the enemy's lives. That's the CIC's job, second in priority only to winning the war. As far as I can tell, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved both ends. To repeat: Japan could have broadcast their surrender at any time, even six months after Pearl Harbor. They could have broadcast an unconditional surrender in July 1945. They could have broadcast it after Hiroshima. They chose to wait. Whose fault is tha
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Then why weren't the Japanese able to overcome the effects? The key here, I believe, is how would we know we had been hit to take the showers? Plus, what if they're laced with bioweapons? Stacy. At 01:52 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote: Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view. If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a really big deal either. Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. But that's a topic for another thread, one that I have begun doing detailed and extensive research on. You will be the first to see the fruits of that research - sort of a test market! Jon Marc A. Schindler wrote: I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a messy radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/10/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view. If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower (at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a really big deal either. Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much greater. But that's a topic for another thread, one that I have begun doing detailed and extensive research on. You will be the first to see the fruits of that research - sort of a test market! Jon Marc A. Schindler wrote: I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a messy radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Only if it were a rationalization. The Chinese are still suffering today because of the biological weapons the Japanese used on them. The Japanese offensive was brutal and criminal beyond what I can comprehend. That only a few Japanese died compared to the excesses of their war campaigns should be considered a blessing by those people. We have never done anything like that, and while I live and breathe we never will. No, it is no rationalization. Jon John W. Redelfs wrote: > After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > >I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for > >any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite > >clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and > >American. > > The same rationalization could be used in any war. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
It may be a cliché to you, but it is not a cliché to me. How did the Twin Towers disappear? How did the Pentagon get zapped? How did the Twin Towers get bombed? How did all of the threats that were aborted without us ever knowing get enabled? Distance is a barrier only to major movements of arms. It is not a barrier to a suitcase nuke or a smallpox infected person. From this perspective, there is no far away place. I have traveled around the world (literally, starting in Raleigh and going west until I came back to Raleigh), and it was very easy. No major city in the relatively free world is more than 24 hours away, and most are far closer. This is much much closer than the Lamanites were to the Nephites. Note, also, that I did not say "It's a small world after all." I would never say that. After ONE trip through that stupid Disneyland ride, I HATED that stupid song. I now have some concept of what hell must be like. Jon John W. Redelfs wrote: > After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > >There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of > >course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than > >from where you live, but I digress. :-) > > This is a cliche. Of course there is an "other side of the world" even > today. Does every nation have long distance bombers or ICBMs? Can all > nations afford virtually unlimited transportation technology? Do they all > have great navys? Speaking as one who has had to severely limit his trips > to the Lower Forty-eight because of exorbitant airfares, I can assure you > that it is still a big world. It is just somewhat smaller than it used to be. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 11:00 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote: Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this. If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life. (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1946, Afternoon Meeting 89.) If we didn't develop the atomic bombs and make plenty of them isn't it possible that we might not be here today to read this quote because the Russians or some other country would have nuked us? I'm glad that the above quote is in the archives only and is not quoted in our conferences today. That would really depress me. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] It might depress you further to know that the United States was instrumental in turning over nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Major Racey Jordan wrote a book entitled, _Major Jordan's Diaries_, about his part, unbeknownst to him at the time, of delivering weapons grade uranium, plans, diagrams and other supplies to the Soviets. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Explore Freedom: http://www.geocities.com/graymada / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I was hoping for some. Actually, I have given quite a bit of thought to this question, and I have had a very difficult time with it. Jon > After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively > defend ourselves, and ONE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME COMPARING NEPHITES > SITUATIONS TO OUR CURRENT SITUATIONS. > --- > > Any thoughts on this statement? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 10:42 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote: Steve, I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm not prepared to see my country go down for any reason even if it meant the entire destruction of other countries. Whatever it takes to preserve our rights and liberties must be considered. Now--you probably can guess that I don't want to see civilians killed because I don't. I think smaller tactical nuclear bombs are more prudent. But if that doesn't work than I think the full size bombs could be dropped if that is what it takes to save us from the destruction of American life and property. I'm quite disappointed to learn that any church leader from the WWII era opposed the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps there is good reason why a member of the First Presidency was critical of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: JOHN F. MCMANUS Why did the U.S. unleash its terrible weapon? Prevailing wisdom concerning the August 1945 atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki holds that those twin horrors were undertaken to force Japan to sue for peace. Had the bombs not been employed (so the "wisdom" goes), an enormous number of American troops would have perished in an inevitable amphibious operation against the Japanese mainland. During much of 1995, controversy engulfed plans by Washington, DC's Smithsonian Institution to exhibit the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that delivered the A-bomb over Hiroshima. Incredibly, the exhibit's original commentary intended to empathize with Japan and portray the United States as perpetrators of a "war of vengeance." The planned text even declared of the Pacific conflict, "For most of the Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism." Veterans groups, angry citizens, and some members of Congress eventually forced the Smithsonian to rewrite the text for the exhibit. What finally emerged, not surprisingly, is now being targeted by an assortment of pacifists and anti-nuclear partisans. A wall panel now informs viewers: [The atomic bombs] destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths. However, the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Such an invasion, especially if undertaken for both main islands, would have led to heavy casualties among American, Allied, and Japanese armed forces and Japanese civilians. This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this historical view, like the original commentary intended for the exhibit, is not supported by the facts. Immediately after the war had ended, President Harry Truman publicized the view of wartime Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have required "a million men for the landing and a million more to hold it, and ... half a million casualties." Much of the historical perspective on the era holds that the Japanese were prepared to fight to their very last man, and that until the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been visited upon their homeland Japanese leaders had no intention of surrendering. But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the fateful use of the atomic bombs. In her 1956 book, The Enemy at His Back, journalist Elizabeth Churchill Brown supplied overwhelming evidence to counter the inaccurate views about the close of the war. Beginning in 1949, she plunged into dozens of wartime memoirs and congressional hearings dealing with the conflict. The wife of noted Washington Star columnist Constantine Brown, Mrs. Brown had access to many of "the men who were no longer 'under wraps,'" as she noted. She wrote, "With this knowledge at hand, I quickly began to see why the war with Japan was unprecedented in all history. Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the conflict ended." In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on civilian populations. Divided Opinion Even before Japan started the war, its leadership was divided into two sharply opposing factions. Those who never wanted any hostilities between Japan and the United States were known as "the peace party." They counted among their number Emperor Hirohito and several high officers in the navy. The other faction, the militarists led by Army leader Tojo
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this. If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life. (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1946, Afternoon Meeting 89.) If we didn't develop the atomic bombs and make plenty of them isn't it possible that we might not be here today to read this quote because the Russians or some other country would have nuked us? I'm glad that the above quote is in the archives only and is not quoted in our conferences today. That would really depress me. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Dropping currently powerful nuclear bombs could also mean our destruction as a nation, any way you see it. Stacy. At 11:42 PM 11/08/2002 -0600, you wrote: Steve, I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm not prepared to see my country go down for any reason even if it meant the entire destruction of other countries. Whatever it takes to preserve our rights and liberties must be considered. Now--you probably can guess that I don't want to see civilians killed because I don't. I think smaller tactical nuclear bombs are more prudent. But if that doesn't work than I think the full size bombs could be dropped if that is what it takes to save us from the destruction of American life and property. I'm quite disappointed to learn that any church leader from the WWII era opposed the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Steve, I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm not prepared to see my country go down for any reason even if it meant the entire destruction of other countries. Whatever it takes to preserve our rights and liberties must be considered. Now--you probably can guess that I don't want to see civilians killed because I don't. I think smaller tactical nuclear bombs are more prudent. But if that doesn't work than I think the full size bombs could be dropped if that is what it takes to save us from the destruction of American life and property. I'm quite disappointed to learn that any church leader from the WWII era opposed the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
At 06:32 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote: >Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their >lives in such an attack? IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that end, I am all for it. Whoever attacks this country should be made to pay the ultimate price and that will set the example for the rest of the world and probably deter future wars. Nuclear explosions are merciful because they vaporize a large part of the enemy quickly and get rid of the problem right away. Everyone is so worried about the innocents. THAT'S WAR! The Lord and Joshuah weren't worried about the innocents. "Slay them ALL"! The object is to win and not take any chances of loosing. It's dangerous for a bleeding heart liberal to lead troops in a battle and expect victory. Take that wuss Jimmy Carter for example; Oh blah! He sent some helicopters into Iran for a rescue and that was a big fat joke. We should have bombed Iran and set the example back then and declared the hostages war heros. Then we could have exacted tribute and filled the coffers of American banks as a further punishment against our enemies. You mark my words--Iran is going to be a real problem for us in the not so distant future. We Americans will pay for our failure to bomb them properly as we should have done. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very interesting, your approval of total warfare. I take it you also approved of the firebombing of Dresden, a non-important city strategically, where over 250,000 people, men, woman and children, including wounded who had been gathered there, lost their lives in two days? Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be poured out upon all nations) beginning with General Sherman's march to the sea. At least one First Presidency member and noted Constitutional scholar, J. Reuben Clark has condemned total warfare. President Clark criticized the bombing of Dresden and other cities, even including Hiroshima and Nagasaki as unnecessary and barbaric. He stated on one occasion: "Is it not time in the world for a curb to be placed upon the narrow, fiendish concepts of militarists, and their evil lusts and passions by which they are constantly driven to plan and carry out ever increasing woe, misery, destruction, and slaughter of the aged, the infirm, the sick, the crippled? There are elements of good that must control the base in men, even in war. How long will their ears be deaf to the cries of the Christian conscience of the world, and to their own better instincts as men? How long will they challenge the eternal principle voiced by the Master two millenniums ago: 'With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again?' And again: 'Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, October 1946, Afternoon Meeting) In addition he also criticized the United States for their role in perpetuating total war thusly: Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this. If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life. (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1946, Afternoon Meeting 89.) -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nations are defined by their founders. George Washington set a standard of selfless public service and heroic private virtue against which American politicians continue to be measured - and found wanting - even today." --Steven W. Mosher / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their >lives in such an attack? IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that end, I am all for it. Whoever attacks this country should be made to pay the ultimate price and that will set the example for the rest of the world and probably deter future wars. Nuclear explosions are merciful because they vaporize a large part of the enemy quickly and get rid of the problem right away. Everyone is so worried about the innocents. THAT'S WAR! The Lord and Joshuah weren't worried about the innocents. "Slay them ALL"! The object is to win and not take any chances of loosing. It's dangerous for a bleeding heart liberal to lead troops in a battle and expect victory. Take that wuss Jimmy Carter for example; Oh blah! He sent some helicopters into Iran for a rescue and that was a big fat joke. We should have bombed Iran and set the example back then and declared the hostages war heros. Then we could have exacted tribute and filled the coffers of American banks as a further punishment against our enemies. You mark my words--Iran is going to be a real problem for us in the not so distant future. We Americans will pay for our failure to bomb them properly as we should have done. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Thanks for that -- I wasn't aware of this. I'm not surprised that it involved China, actually. Mark Gregson wrote: > > > Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of > > the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other > > than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War. > > I heard President George Bush state at the beginning of the Gulf War that the US had >not ruled out the use of nukes in that war. That is a credible threat in my opinion. > > The threat in the Korean War was even more direct: > > http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml > > "On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations >against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council >endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day. > > Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a >message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would >begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells. " > > = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = > > > -- > ___ > Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com > > Powered by Outblaze > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Mark Gregson wrote: > > > It is quite > > clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and > > American. > > I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the >war. You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in >Japan if you want to maintain that belief. > > > When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? > > Korean War and Gulf War. > I won't disagree with you because I honestly don't know. But at what point in each of these conflicts was there a threat to use nukes? > > (Unless you consider a "real" threat to be only a case where the US was minutes away >from pulling the trigger.) > > > This brings up an interesting point, namely, if al Qaeda gets a nuke from > > some rogue country, or one of the floating Soviet nukes, and uses it, whom > > would we retaliate against? My best guess is that we would not retaliate > > Yes, I've wondered about that, too. When (not if) Manhatten is nuked, what will the >US response be? I assume that it will be by terrorists. > Personally I think they'll broaden their attacks. They won't be just against the U.S. anymore. > > > I also disagree with your last statement about war. The Church stays out of > > things like that. > > No, as already posted on this list the Church leaders have made statements about the >rightness of specific wars. > In general ways. But you and I are, I think, in agreement about this, so I won't say anything more. I guess I've "contaminated" you, or were you always a pinko socialist isolationist Canuck? > > As to what the scriptures say about it, well, that's been hotly deliberated for >weeks on this list. We will have to agree to disagree. > > = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
...with sarcasm. Not to be taken seriously. Jon Spencer wrote: > When logic fails, attack! :-) > > Jon > > Marc A. Schindler wrote: > > If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it > knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-) > > Paul Osborne wrote: > > > After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with: > > >The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined > > >that he is guilty. Case closed. > > > > >>Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence. > > --JWR > > > > The US government is not that broken John. It is without a doubt the > > smartest entity on earth. > > > > Paul O > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
> Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of > the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other > than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War. I heard President George Bush state at the beginning of the Gulf War that the US had not ruled out the use of nukes in that war. That is a credible threat in my opinion. The threat in the Korean War was even more direct: http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml "On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day. Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells. " = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Jon Spencer wrote: > I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for > any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite > clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and > American. > > When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? Since the Cuban crisis (which we've discussed before), I am not aware of the US making any such threat, but there are two issues that Arab countries in particular have. The first is one that all non-US countries share: the US's refusal to forego the "right to first strike," and the one that's unique to the Middle East is the help that the US has given to Israel, which is a "non-public nuclear state." Israel, too, has ignored a number of UN resolutions, and many Arabs see the US as being hypocritical in this regard. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them -- am just pointing out the concern. > As far as I > know, other than some rumored clandestine close calls, the only serious > threat of using nukes occurred in the 60's in the Cuban missile showdown. > Our dear friend Castro, the same one how was recently cheered in Harlem, > demanded that the Soviet commander use the tactical nukes. He supposedly > almost did, but obviously they were not used. > > This brings up an interesting point, namely, if al Qaeda gets a nuke from > some rogue country, or one of the floating Soviet nukes, and uses it, whom > would we retaliate against? My best guess is that we would not retaliate > (at least President Bush wouldn't, nor would anyone else currently likely to > occupy the Presidency). > I think the most imminent threat isn't from a conventional nuke but from so-called dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives packed with a messy radioactive substance such as caesium (which is a powder in natural form). > > This is one of the reasons it is so important to (1) get rid of Saddam, (2) > bring North Korea into line, (3) assist he Russians to make a major effort > to find all their nukes, (4) aggressively protect our borders, and (5) > aggressively pursue any and all international terrorist threats. We do not > have the luxury of sitting around playing peace. All of this can be done > without trampling on what both John and I consider to be inalienable rights. > > I also disagree with your last statement about war. The Church stays out of > things like that. We are obligated to protect ourselves. We do not need > direction in all things. I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we > should not preemptively defend ourselves, and one has a very difficult time > comparing Nephites situations to our current situations. Yes, war is a > serious issue. But I will promise you, if there were a group of thugs in > Cary (the next town over from Apex, where I live), and they were making > plans to attack me in a manner that I could not defend against, I would > preemptively move against them. I fell sorry for anyone who would not. > > Jon > > Mark Gregson wrote: > > > > > > I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take > out a > > > carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to > use > > > nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds > of > > > our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when that event > occurs. > > > > Once the nukes start getting tossed around it won't matter who was the > first to use them because "everyone" will be using them as just another > conventional weapon. There won't be any moral high ground, just as there is > no moral high ground right now in the use of tanks, planes, ships, > artillery, grenades, rifles and so on. > > > > Anyway, the US has already used nukes in war and has also threatened > further use so the precendent is set. Anyone using nukes in battle will > justify themselves on the US precedent. It won't matter if you agree with > them or not, they will use that justification. Not that justification has > much to do with anything. The nukes will kill lots of people with or > without it and the response will be extremely hard to limit. The genie came > out of the bottle in about 1939 when the US decided to work on the bomb. > > > > (Well, of course the moral high ground is to not wage war except as > specified by scripture and revelation.) > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of t
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Try buying one of those military special gliders that one runs on one's back or whatever. Stacy. At 01:55 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than from where you live, but I digress. :-) This is a cliche. Of course there is an "other side of the world" even today. Does every nation have long distance bombers or ICBMs? Can all nations afford virtually unlimited transportation technology? Do they all have great navys? Speaking as one who has had to severely limit his trips to the Lower Forty-eight because of exorbitant airfares, I can assure you that it is still a big world. It is just somewhat smaller than it used to be. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === "Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Ouch! If they were radioactive do you think I'd want that? Unless the Lord intends everything that's brought by them to all of a sudden become free of radiation. That may be a bigger miracle than any prophet has ever seen happen. Stacy. At 02:11 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world. Maybe radioactive ravens could bring you morsels. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
There is what I generally call the Covenant of Ether, that I think John's talking about here. It doesn't just apply to the U.S., imo, but to all countries of the new world (in fact, Pres. Kimball likened Zion to an eagle, with two wings, one south and one north). Look at all the countries of this "Zion" -- have we made righteous choices? I don't think so. So while the US's choices have the biggest effect purely because of your power, the moral responsibility is not solely your's. "John W. Redelfs" wrote: > After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: > >I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I > >agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I > >suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but > >only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. > > The Book of Mormon clearly teaches--citations available on demand--that if > the voice of the people should ever choose wickedness, their destruction is > imminent. It also teaches that our nation will serve the God of this land > or it will be "swept off." > > Judging from how close the last election was, the voice of the people is on > the verge of choosing wickedness. I think they did it when they elected > Clinton to his second term. I think they did it when they upheld that > notorious Supreme Court decision in 1973. > > What this nations needs most in its War on Terrorism is widespread, > national repentance. Have any of you seen signs of this > happening? Statistically has sexual immorality gone down? Is church > attendance way up? Has there been any rush to marry live in partners. Is > there a growing clamor for repealing those laws that allow state sponsored > gambling? Is the liquor in a deep slump from falling sales? > > If there is not widespread national repentance, the USA will be > destroyed. Further, it will deserve it. > > John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] > === > Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to > me, that's what her dinner tasted like. --Jack Handy > === > All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Going through this world as blind is challenge enough. Going through the same after nuclear attack I cannot fathom. Stacy. At 05:12 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I could learn to cope. But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so long as I had a firm hold on my testimony of the gospel, with a firm knowledge that I would be rejoined with my family. I wouldn't ask for it - I sort of like my relatively cushy life (:-) - but I would do what the Lord asked (so long as I didn't have to give up my French Shriner shoes - I have worn them and nothing else now for about 24 years, even thought the brand name keeps changing). There is something very satisfying about fighting for what is right, regardless of the consequences the world tries to give you. If the Spirit is there by your side, I know that you can accomplish anything the Lord asks you to do. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there > wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about > cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not > survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking > about. Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a > possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world. > > Stacy. > > At 04:52 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice > >guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their > >disability irrelevant. > > > >Jon > > > >Stacy Smith wrote: > > > > > If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I > > > be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped? > > > > > > Stacy. > > > > > > At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > >Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each > > > >brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will > >be > > > >two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's > >3 > > > >guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. > > > > > > > >And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. > > > > > > > >Jon > > > > > > > >/// // > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/// // > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world. Maybe radioactive ravens could bring you morsels. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and American. The same rationalization could be used in any war. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than from where you live, but I digress. :-) This is a cliche. Of course there is an "other side of the world" even today. Does every nation have long distance bombers or ICBMs? Can all nations afford virtually unlimited transportation technology? Do they all have great navys? Speaking as one who has had to severely limit his trips to the Lower Forty-eight because of exorbitant airfares, I can assure you that it is still a big world. It is just somewhat smaller than it used to be. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === "Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively defend ourselves, and ONE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME COMPARING NEPHITES SITUATIONS TO OUR CURRENT SITUATIONS. --- Any thoughts on this statement? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Yes, I've started getting those. Stacy. At 03:26 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote: Stacy: Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are you thinking we could have manna again? Dan: MRE's / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Stacy: Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are you thinking we could have manna again? Dan: MRE's / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I could learn to cope. But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so long as I had a firm hold on my testimony of the gospel, with a firm knowledge that I would be rejoined with my family. I wouldn't ask for it - I sort of like my relatively cushy life (:-) - but I would do what the Lord asked (so long as I didn't have to give up my French Shriner shoes - I have worn them and nothing else now for about 24 years, even thought the brand name keeps changing). There is something very satisfying about fighting for what is right, regardless of the consequences the world tries to give you. If the Spirit is there by your side, I know that you can accomplish anything the Lord asks you to do. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there > wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about > cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not > survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking > about. Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a > possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world. > > Stacy. > > At 04:52 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice > >guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their > >disability irrelevant. > > > >Jon > > > >Stacy Smith wrote: > > > > > If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I > > > be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped? > > > > > > Stacy. > > > > > > At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > >Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each > > > >brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will > >be > > > >two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's > >3 > > > >guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. > > > > > > > >And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. > > > > > > > >Jon > > > > > > > >/// // > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/// // > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world. Stacy. At 04:52 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their disability irrelevant. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I > be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped? > > Stacy. > > At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each > >brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be > >two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3 > >guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. > > > >And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. > > > >Jon > > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their disability irrelevant. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I > be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped? > > Stacy. > > At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each > >brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be > >two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3 > >guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. > > > >And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. > > > >Jon > > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War. Jon Mark Gregson wrote: > > When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? > > Korean War and Gulf War. > > (Unless you consider a "real" threat to be only a case where the US was minutes away from pulling the trigger.) > / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped? Stacy. At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote: Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3 guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I > agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I > suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but > only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. > > Stacy. > > At 10:04 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: > > >After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > >>I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of me > >>agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your > >>prognostications are not correct. But PLEASE don't go so far over the edge > >>in stating the reasons for your opposition. It scares me! You are supposed > >>to be one of the sane ones. > > > >It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. America is the > >aggressor because Afghanistan and Iraq are on the other side of the > >world. How is that for being concise? / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
And we're diggin' as fast as we can, right? :-) Jon John W. Redelfs wrote: > We already have the moral low ground. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3 guys plus 21 gals - 28 people. And remember, whoever gives his life for me will be saved. Jon Stacy Smith wrote: > I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I > agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I > suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but > only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. > > Stacy. > > At 10:04 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: > > >After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > >>I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of me > >>agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your > >>prognostications are not correct. But PLEASE don't go so far over the edge > >>in stating the reasons for your opposition. It scares me! You are supposed > >>to be one of the sane ones. > > > >It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. America is the > >aggressor because Afghanistan and Iraq are on the other side of the > >world. How is that for being concise? / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Collateral damage would take on a whole new meaning! Jon Steven Montgomery wrote: Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their lives in such an attack? -- Steven Montgomery At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote: >You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem. > >Paul Osborne wrote: > > > >Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television, > > out of > > >Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so > > there's not > > >much doubt. > > > > Right. And, I'm in favor of nuclear strikes if necessary--if that's what > > it takes to knock out those people that support terrorism. And, I'm not > > kidding either. We should have just nuked those mountains instead of > > wasting time going up there to shoot them. We should demonstrate that an > > attack on US soil will be met with the greatest of force. Then, these > > punky nations will learn to fear us and police themselves a little > > better. > > > > Bomb em, nuke em-- and let em have it! And, I predict that Iraq is about > > to get it really good. You'll see. They deserve it too. > > > > Paul O / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Yes, it is a moral issue. You know my feelings about politics. There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than from where you live, but I digress. :-) There is no obvious manner in which to equate the Nephite's situation to ours. It is probably easier (and far faster) for al Qaeda forces to traverse the miles from the other side of the world, than it was for the Lamanites to travel from their location to visit Captain Moroni. So, basically, I do not see your statement below as being valid. I see all of our actions and motives as being defensive in nature. Thus, for me, they are right and moral. Your opinion, of course, may vary. It is not a simple question, but I have seen no viable alternative from you on this matter, one that deals with all of the various issues. "Just stay home" doesn't cut it. "Wait until they nuke us, or use WoMM to kill at least 1,000,000 people" or some such is not acceptable to me, especially since I live in one of the top 100 attack areas. Note, however, that I would feel the same way if I did not. Your life is no less precious to me than are the lives of my family. Jon John W. Redelfs wrote: > After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: > >I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of me > >agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your > >prognostications are not correct. But PLEASE don't go so far over the edge > >in stating the reasons for your opposition. It scares me! You are supposed > >to be one of the sane ones. > > It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. America is the > aggressor because Afghanistan and Iraq are on the other side of the > world. How is that for being concise? / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
> It is quite > clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and > American. I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the war. You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in Japan if you want to maintain that belief. > When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? Korean War and Gulf War. (Unless you consider a "real" threat to be only a case where the US was minutes away from pulling the trigger.) > This brings up an interesting point, namely, if al Qaeda gets a nuke from > some rogue country, or one of the floating Soviet nukes, and uses it, whom > would we retaliate against? My best guess is that we would not retaliate Yes, I've wondered about that, too. When (not if) Manhatten is nuked, what will the US response be? I assume that it will be by terrorists. > I also disagree with your last statement about war. The Church stays out of > things like that. No, as already posted on this list the Church leaders have made statements about the rightness of specific wars. As to what the scriptures say about it, well, that's been hotly deliberated for weeks on this list. We will have to agree to disagree. = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
My sentiments exactly. Do you really call that "winning," for the few of us that are left? I suppose in some ways it is. At least those of us who are left will deserve to be left. But for a while we will have to go through torment, and don't ask me to look forward to that. Stacy. At 10:41 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches--citations available on demand--that if the voice of the people should ever choose wickedness, their destruction is imminent. It also teaches that our nation will serve the God of this land or it will be "swept off." Judging from how close the last election was, the voice of the people is on the verge of choosing wickedness. I think they did it when they elected Clinton to his second term. I think they did it when they upheld that notorious Supreme Court decision in 1973. What this nations needs most in its War on Terrorism is widespread, national repentance. Have any of you seen signs of this happening? Statistically has sexual immorality gone down? Is church attendance way up? Has there been any rush to marry live in partners. Is there a growing clamor for repealing those laws that allow state sponsored gambling? Is the liquor in a deep slump from falling sales? If there is not widespread national repentance, the USA will be destroyed. Further, it will deserve it. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
When logic fails, attack! :-) Jon Marc A. Schindler wrote: If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-) Paul Osborne wrote: > After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with: > >The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined > >that he is guilty. Case closed. > > >>Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence. > --JWR > > The US government is not that broken John. It is without a doubt the > smartest entity on earth. > > Paul O / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and American. When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? As far as I know, other than some rumored clandestine close calls, the only serious threat of using nukes occurred in the 60's in the Cuban missile showdown. Our dear friend Castro, the same one how was recently cheered in Harlem, demanded that the Soviet commander use the tactical nukes. He supposedly almost did, but obviously they were not used. This brings up an interesting point, namely, if al Qaeda gets a nuke from some rogue country, or one of the floating Soviet nukes, and uses it, whom would we retaliate against? My best guess is that we would not retaliate (at least President Bush wouldn't, nor would anyone else currently likely to occupy the Presidency). This is one of the reasons it is so important to (1) get rid of Saddam, (2) bring North Korea into line, (3) assist he Russians to make a major effort to find all their nukes, (4) aggressively protect our borders, and (5) aggressively pursue any and all international terrorist threats. We do not have the luxury of sitting around playing peace. All of this can be done without trampling on what both John and I consider to be inalienable rights. I also disagree with your last statement about war. The Church stays out of things like that. We are obligated to protect ourselves. We do not need direction in all things. I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively defend ourselves, and one has a very difficult time comparing Nephites situations to our current situations. Yes, war is a serious issue. But I will promise you, if there were a group of thugs in Cary (the next town over from Apex, where I live), and they were making plans to attack me in a manner that I could not defend against, I would preemptively move against them. I fell sorry for anyone who would not. Jon Mark Gregson wrote: > > > I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a > > carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use > > nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of > > our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when that event occurs. > > Once the nukes start getting tossed around it won't matter who was the first to use them because "everyone" will be using them as just another conventional weapon. There won't be any moral high ground, just as there is no moral high ground right now in the use of tanks, planes, ships, artillery, grenades, rifles and so on. > > Anyway, the US has already used nukes in war and has also threatened further use so the precendent is set. Anyone using nukes in battle will justify themselves on the US precedent. It won't matter if you agree with them or not, they will use that justification. Not that justification has much to do with anything. The nukes will kill lots of people with or without it and the response will be extremely hard to limit. The genie came out of the bottle in about 1939 when the US decided to work on the bomb. > > (Well, of course the moral high ground is to not wage war except as specified by scripture and revelation.) / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches--citations available on demand--that if the voice of the people should ever choose wickedness, their destruction is imminent. It also teaches that our nation will serve the God of this land or it will be "swept off." Judging from how close the last election was, the voice of the people is on the verge of choosing wickedness. I think they did it when they elected Clinton to his second term. I think they did it when they upheld that notorious Supreme Court decision in 1973. What this nations needs most in its War on Terrorism is widespread, national repentance. Have any of you seen signs of this happening? Statistically has sexual immorality gone down? Is church attendance way up? Has there been any rush to marry live in partners. Is there a growing clamor for repealing those laws that allow state sponsored gambling? Is the liquor in a deep slump from falling sales? If there is not widespread national repentance, the USA will be destroyed. Further, it will deserve it. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when that event occurs. We need to always take the high road, so that, if and when the time comes that we have to respond in kind, we can do with honor. We already have the moral low ground. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning. Stacy. At 10:04 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of me agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your prognostications are not correct. But PLEASE don't go so far over the edge in stating the reasons for your opposition. It scares me! You are supposed to be one of the sane ones. It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. America is the aggressor because Afghanistan and Iraq are on the other side of the world. How is that for being concise? Your friend and brother, John W. Redelfs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
