Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-14 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Rick Mathis
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)

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Rick Mathis
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-12 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-11 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-11 Thread Elmer L. Fairbank
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-11 Thread Elmer L. Fairbank
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-11 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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.

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Stephen Beecroft
-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,

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jim Cobabe
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Stephen Beecroft
-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,

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Paul Osborne
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]

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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,

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Stacy Smith
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

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jim Cobabe
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

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Stacy Smith
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,

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jon Spencer
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,

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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?

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Paul Osborne
(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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler
snort 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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
Again, you fail to answer the question. Why do you say that we have left the job half done? What evidence do you have that nothing is happening against the Taliban. I see plenty happening. What in the world are you talking about I gave you several options to choose from and you didn't

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
Yes, but cocky people are very proud of their deeds. I don't have any doubts. Stacy. At 07:13 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television, out of Doha, Qatar, the day after.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
John, you seem to have a really blind spot on this issue. This is really not like you - it has given you Alzheimer disease, I think. The video of USB claiming responsibility and talking about the plans ahead of time was played ad nauseum on the TV rag outlets. And while we do have an obligation

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
And, to add to Marc's comments (don't faint, Marc :-), we would suffer greatly in both the short and the long run were we to so over-react. 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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
To be sure, but it seems the videotape was prepared ahead of time and delivered to al-Jazeera on condition they not play it until after the 11th of September, from what I recall. That would at least imply foreknowledge, if not guilt as such. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Marc A.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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?

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Mark Gregson
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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.

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Dan R Allen
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Mark Gregson
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
...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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Paul Osborne
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Paul Osborne
Quote 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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
At 11:00 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote: Quote 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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-08 Thread Stacy Smith
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

Re: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

2002-11-07 Thread Jon Spencer
OK, I'll bite. What should we do? And why do you think we are moving on (could you define that please?)? Jon Stacy Smith wrote: My point still holds even if they are no longer in Afghanistan. Why are we moving on? Stacy.

  1   2   >