North Korea has Nuclear Weapons

[racer5.0stang]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050210/D885O08O1.html (http://)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea announced for the first time Thursday it has nuclear weapons, and it rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The communist state's statement dramatically raised the stakes in the 2-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The news agency used the colloquial term "nukes" in its English-language account.

[ASsman]

Again?

[Qdrop]

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North), and to sell to the highest bidder ,"


umm.....france, germany,....russia, china.....anyone wanna help out here?
or are they just hoping the cowboy americans will jump in again, take care of it at their own cost and self-defimation.....while the rest of you sit back and comment on how imperialist we are.

[racer5.0stang]

Again?


What do you mean?

[ASsman]

.....while the rest of you sit back and comment on how imperialist we are.
Because it's not true right?


Much better article.



North Korea: We have nuclear weapons to defend from US

Staff and agencies
Thursday February 10, 2005

North Korea today publicly acknowledged for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and rejected recent attempts to restart disarmament talks soon.

In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said it needed the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, reacted by saying North Korea should not worry about any US plans for invasion.

The North Korean statement, which was carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, said: "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the [North]."

North Korea had reportedly already told the US in private that it had nuclear weapons and that it might test one of them. It is thought North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons but is building its capacity to make more.

Analysts said today's announcement may be a negotiating gambit aimed at improving North Korea's position in the vexed six-nation talks about its nuclear intentions that started two years ago. The ministry statement said that North Korea retained its "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged".

The statement attacked the US president, George Bush, who started his second term last month vowing to end North Korea's nuclear programme, although he used more toned down rhetoric than previously.

He said this would be achieved through the talks that started in 2003 involving the two Koreas, America, China, Japan and Russia, that have so far failed to yield substantial progress.

Mr Bush's tone - in stark contrast to three years ago when he described North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq - raised hopes of a positive response from North Korea. But today's statement from North Korea said it had decided not to rejoin talks after Mr Bush's inaugural and state of the union speeches, and after Ms Rice labelled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny". The foreign ministry said it would not return to talks until "there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results".

The statement said Washington's alleged attempt to topple the North's regime "compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people".

Speaking in the Netherlands while on a trip through Europe, Ms Rice told Netherlands' RTL TV: "The North Koreans have no reason to believe that anyone wants to attack them."

"They have been told they can have multilateral security assurances if they will make the important decision to give up their nuclear weapons programme."

South Korea said the North's decision to stay away from talks was "seriously regrettable".

Foreign ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung said: "We once again urge North Korea to rejoin the six-party talks without conditions so that it can discuss whatever differences it has with the United States and other participants.

"We express our strong concern with the North Korean statement that it has nuclear weapons and we again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons."

In Japan, the government's main spokesman said he wanted to confirm the North's intentions.

"They have used this sort of phrasing every so often. They didn't say anything particularly new," the chief cabinet secretary, Hiroyuki Hosoda, told a news conference.

The North's UN envoy said last year that the country had "weaponised" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods. Those rods contained enough plutonium for several bombs.

The nuclear crisis began in October 2002 when US officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment programme in violation of international treaties, and the country expelled UN monitors.

Washington and its allies cut off free oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the US.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons programme, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1410047,00.html

[racer5.0stang]

Sounds like they have an "itchy trigger finger". Just looking for an excuse to use one of their new toys.

[ASsman]

Indeed, looking for any excuse to justify their actions. Kind of like another country I know....

[Schmeltz]

saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.


Wow, Bush's pre-emptive strike policy in action, making the world a safer place and containing those nasty rogue states.

[Whois]

We shall civilize these Korean savages, even if it means wiping them off the face of the Earth.

"Civilization today reminds me of an ape with a blowtorch playing in a room full of dynamite. It looks like the monkeys are about to operate the zoo, and the inmates are taking over the asylum." - Dr. Vance Havner (1901 - 1986)

[Echewta]

Follow the leader.

We had a chance to invade and help the march of freedom and democracy in North Korea years ago. We went after the weakest threat in the Axis of Evil. Now its to late for NK and Iran.

[infidel]

saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.That is the exact same reason Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who passed nuke secrets all over the middle east, gave for giving the technology away.

[Echewta]

I mean seriously. The U.S. invaded a country against the will of many people around the globe and we wonder why countries that were called out (Iran/North Korea) are trying to get the super weapon to prevent their countries from being freedom marched? Its amazing. I'm not saying its right but it makes total sense.

[Qdrop]

"nations or countries" aren't the problem here.
NO nation would ever use nuclear weapons on an enemy directly.
they would obvioulsy face immediate nuclear response....
no winners there...
this is stating the obvious...

it's terrorists and rogue operations that would use them, and they get them by buying from shady nations that would deal out nuclear weapons, weapon grade plutonium, ect.....
if a mulsim (or any other) terrorist wanted to get his hands on nuclear weapondry or dirty bomb materials....where does he/she go?

[phinkasaurus]

or better yet, why does the terrorist or rogue nation want these nuclear weapons?

...the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

oh right, we know why... because they hate our freedoms.

man, the u.s shouild invade more countries, widen our military grip on the world, crush more cultures... i mean, it seems to be working right?
[/sarcasm]

[Echewta]

if a mulsim (or any other) terrorist wanted to get his hands on nuclear weapondry or dirty bomb materials....where does he/she go?

Just about anywhere I believe Q. Old Soviet stockpile, that the U.S. wisely is trying to protect, keeps getting dicked around for funding. But don't put it past someone in the U.S. to get stuff to you know.

Thats the scary part. Greed is international.

[Whois]

I don't have the time right now but...does anyone know if Belarus (former Soviet Republic) still has any Soviet nukes or did they give them back to Russia?

[infidel]

"nations or countries" aren't the problem here.
NO nation would ever use nuclear weapons on an enemy directly.
they would obvioulsy face immediate nuclear response....
no winners there...
this is stating the obvious...

it's terrorists and rogue operations that would use them, and they get them by buying from shady nations that would deal out nuclear weapons, weapon grade plutonium, ect.....
if a mulsim (or any other) terrorist wanted to get his hands on nuclear weapondry or dirty bomb materials....where does he/she go?
As I said in the Iran thread, the problem with this is that nuclear fingerprinting has developed to the point where the material can be traced back to the exact reactor it came from. If a country sells it or is lax in securing their nuclear materials they cut their own throat.

[ASsman]

Dude, of course nuclear missiles aren't for shooting. Christ, they are for leverage. You really think their few missiles are any match for our many missiles, and large land mass? C'mon, think with your head.

[Qdrop]

Dude, of course nuclear missiles aren't for shooting. Christ, they are for leverage. You really think their few missiles are any match for our many missiles, and large land mass? C'mon, think with your head.


"nations or countries" aren't the problem here.
NO nation would ever use nuclear weapons on an enemy directly.
they would obvioulsy face immediate nuclear response....
no winners there...
this is stating the obvious...


ahem.....

[ASsman]

You made it seem like having nukes would change nothing, obviously it changes a lot.

[Qdrop]

You made it seem like having nukes would change nothing, obviously it changes a lot.

No...

dude, go re-read this thread....paying attention to what each person says, thier sentiments, retain that info, and edit your post.

[ASsman]

Hmmm, yah. I blame my meat-balls and pasta. Very messy, kept me distracted.

What are we even arguing about anymore?

[Qdrop]

Hmmm, yah. I blame my meat-balls and pasta. Very messy, kept me distracted.

What are we even arguing about anymore?

you were saying that "America is the greatest country in the world", and i said "no way, belgium is".....and it got ugly.

[Qdrop]

It's not the nation who has the nukes we should worry about, it's who that nation is willing to give those nukes to


that's what virtually all of my above posts were stating.


How come we don't hear shit about India and Pakistan (redflag anyone?) anymore?
cause they just ain't "sexy", ya know?

[Funkaloyd]

Thanks to Bush's polocies, Libya is no longer pursuing a nukular weapon! You should all be grateful.

[Baraka]

umm.....france, germany,....russia, china.....anyone wanna help out here?
or are they just hoping the cowboy americans will jump in again, take care of it at their own cost and self-defimation.....while the rest of you sit back and comment on how imperialist we are.

Well, I think the rest of the world had enough sense to stay out of an illegal and completely unjustified war, in which the invader kept coming up with different lies, er, reasons for going to war. WMDs! No wait, ties to Al-Qaeda! Those two reasons were proven to be lies? Uhhhh, Saddam's a dangerous dictator! Uh oh, Iraq has been contained as a threat for years? Broke regime headed by a dictator we put in power and armed to the teeth! Israel could crush them in seconds, but we'll invade, kill 100,000 civilians and create a quagmire! We're spreading freedom! U-S-A! U-S-A!


it's terrorists and rogue operations that would use them, and they get them by buying from shady nations that would deal out nuclear weapons, weapon grade plutonium, ect.....

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Agent Orange in Vietnam? Hello?

[Ace42]

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North), and to sell to the highest bidder

Yeah, couldn't possibly be that a country would notice that the US doesn't dick on countries with Nukes, and thus feel not only obliged, but compelled to have some of their own.

The US has funded and armed "terrorist" organisations around the world, and the ONLY reason why you guys are worried that a nation would give them to "madmen terrorists" is because, according to your own propoganda, that is precisely what you do with WMDs.

Want to know why the rest of the world isn't going to jump in? They are fed up of cleaning the US's messes while Uncle Sam keeps on shitting on the carpet. The US's stance on Israel-Palestine has confounded a peaceful resolution for decades, stirring up the whole region. Until Al Qaeda started operations, the US was one of the nations least effected by terrorism.

Just as their foreign policies have been counter-productive, so has their retaliation (against all the wrong people) in the "war on terror".

The vast majority of posters on this board as been saying that the "war on terror" will only cause greater fear and militarism, and SURPRISE SURPRISE.

Now it's gotten to the point where the US can't just uber-arm their friends (much like in Vietnam, where merely arming and training the troops was not enough, and they had to get their own army involved) so they have to once again send their own troops in (The US armed both Saddam and then the Kurdish 'insurgents' in an attempt to over-throw him) and without the USSR looking over these smaller country's shoulders, they can do step two: Forcibly deny arms to the countries they don't like. Like that is going to work, hah.

US citizens have a right to bear arms against a tyrranical government, and yet in yet another case, the US is going to actually and forcibly deny this right to other countries, places they do not and should not have authority over anyway. More gross hypocrisy.

US is to blame, time y'all stop passing the buck.

[Pres Zount]

I don't have the time right now but...does anyone know if Belarus (former Soviet Republic) still has any Soviet nukes or did they give them back to Russia?

Russia took them, just like they took them out of Ukraine and everywhere else.


I might get blasted, but I think that it's better that NK has nukes, now they won't get invaded and have millions and millions of people killed.

[Ali]

Originally Posted by Qdrop
umm.....france, germany,....russia, china.....anyone wanna help out here?
or are they just hoping the cowboy americans will jump in again, take care of it at their own cost and self-defimation.....while the rest of you sit back and comment on how imperialist we are.Shut the fuck up, you cretin.

Hope that helped

[Gazrock]

I don't think it's all that hard to see that North Korea has these nukes to deter the U.S from trying to pull another "war on terror" card.

Listening to Bush/Rice et al I can totally understand there reasoning for coming out with the statement they did yesterday.

I very much doubt (as previous posters) said that they would ever use them without being provoked first by a nation's administration trying to force there way of life upon them.

And I doubt it needs to be stated that the US has more nukes than the rest of the world put together and that the US is the only nation to ever use nukes on people. But they're so good and righteous that they can do whatever they please, right?

[Qdrop]

Well, I think the rest of the world had enough sense to stay out of an illegal and completely unjustified war, in which the invader kept coming up with different lies, er, reasons for going to war. WMDs! No wait, ties to Al-Qaeda! Those two reasons were proven to be lies? Uhhhh, Saddam's a dangerous dictator! Uh oh, Iraq has been contained as a threat for years? Broke regime headed by a dictator we put in power and armed to the teeth! Israel could crush them in seconds, but we'll invade, kill 100,000 civilians and create a quagmire! We're spreading freedom! U-S-A! U-S-A!
my sentiments are in line with yours as far as the IRaq war.....

but my point is, now that we've really fucked ourselves completely in the eyes of the world....ANY action we take will immediantly be taken as an evil imperialist manuever...


Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Agent Orange in Vietnam? Hello?

have you been reading these threads.....no nuclear armed country would use nuclear weapons in an offensive strike in this day and age.
they'd be leveled in retaliation.

in 1945, we were the only fuckin country to have one.

[ASsman]

ANY action we take will immediantly be taken as an evil imperialist manuever...
Because it would be.....

[Qdrop]

Yeah, couldn't possibly be that a country would notice that the US doesn't dick on countries with Nukes, and thus feel not only obliged, but compelled to have some of their own.

The US has funded and armed "terrorist" organisations around the world, and the ONLY reason why you guys are worried that a nation would give them to "madmen terrorists" is because, according to your own propoganda, that is precisely what you do with WMDs.

you know terrorist organizations activally look for weapons such as these.

so you really feel that no country would ever sell nuclear weapons or weapons grade plutonium to terrorists, ect?
you think that is only the stuff of movies and TV?

that's not rhetorical.
i really would like your input.


Want to know why the rest of the world isn't going to jump in? They are fed up of cleaning the US's messes while Uncle Sam keeps on shitting on the carpet. The US's stance on Israel-Palestine has confounded a peaceful resolution for decades, stirring up the whole region. Until Al Qaeda started operations, the US was one of the nations least effected by terrorism.

fine.
let's let the rest of world deal with NKorea.....china is the only country that would be truly effective anyway.


Just as their foreign policies have been counter-productive, so has their retaliation (against all the wrong people) in the "war on terror".


we went about it wrong, which cause unbeleivable amounts of chaos, true.
but in the process, we have all but crippled the biggest terrorist ring in the world.

the resounding retort would be: "yes, but you have created thousands of new future terrorists in the orphaned young, ect.

time will tell.....but history would have that to be the truth.
glorious, glorious war.



Now it's gotten to the point where the US can't just uber-arm their friends (much like in Vietnam, where merely arming and training the troops was not enough, and they had to get their own army involved) so they have to once again send their own troops in (The US armed both Saddam and then the Kurdish 'insurgents' in an attempt to over-throw him) and without the USSR looking over these smaller country's shoulders, they can do step two: Forcibly deny arms to the countries they don't like. Like that is going to work, hah.

US citizens have a right to bear arms against a tyrranical government, and yet in yet another case, the US is going to actually and forcibly deny this right to other countries, places they do not and should not have authority over anyway. More gross hypocrisy.

US is to blame, time y'all stop passing the buck.

ok, fine.
solutions?

you definatley paint a pretty picture for world here....and put virtually all the blame on the US.
basically we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.....while the europeans, ect...laugh and mock and curse us....all with no personal responsibility in the matter.
oh wait.....didn't Britians prime minister stand side by side with Bush against Iraq and the intelligance reports.
oh, but nevermind....this all america's doing....


anyway...solutiuons, dear Ace?
concrete, detailed ones....any?

[Qdrop]

Shut the fuck up, you cretin.

Hope that helped

do you ever say anything useful, you troll?

i have this mental picture of you as the that little unintelligable rat puppet that sat on Jabba the Hut's shoulder in the Return of the Jedi.
just parroting out annoying sounds like a little chiwawa...

"shut the fuck, cretin!..sqwaaaaaaaaak sqwaaaaaaak...hehheheheheheheh"

[ASsman]

but in the process, we have all but crippled the biggest terrorist ring in the world.
Which one would that be? I wasn't awared it was one big connecting one. I bet that's why there haven't been kidnappings and beaheadings, oh and car bombs, yah we sure crippled a NOUN. And in saying that you cleaned up your own mess, doesn't that leave us back to 0...

Like those Drugs that have been defeated, Terrorism has been stopped. You might think we defeated Terrorism by cutting the head off, when in reality we only stepped on it's tail.

[racer5.0stang]

Lets say that the terrorist attack on 9/11 wasn't on U.S. ground, but lets say Europe for example. I wonder what the outcome would be and if there would be any differences to present time. Granted the U.N. would still be twiddling their collective thumbs, but what recourse would the effected country take? Would they implore U.S. involvement?

[synch]

In the exact same situation but with the towers being in a european country I reckon europe would have gone after someone that may have had something to do with the actual attacks instead of invading afghanistan and iraq.

[Qdrop]

Lets say that the terrorist attack on 9/11 wasn't on U.S. ground, but lets say Europe for example. I wonder what the outcome would be and if there would be any differences to present time. Granted the U.N. would still be twiddling their collective thumbs, but what recourse would the effected country take? Would they implore U.S. involvement?

you're god damn right, they would.......

[Qdrop]

In the exact same situation but with the towers being in a european country I reckon europe would have gone after someone that may have had something to do with the actual attacks instead of invading afghanistan and iraq.

whoa....
don't lump Afganistan with Iraq.

Afganistand WAS harboring the man responsible for 9/11....
they (the taliban) DID have a hand in this and WERE a terrorist training ground/safe harbor.

Iraq, granted...was nothing of the sort.

[Ace42]

so you really feel that no country would ever sell nuclear weapons or weapons grade plutonium to terrorists, ect?
you think that is only the stuff of movies and TV?

For the most part, yes, yes I do. Painting "commies" and "The gooks" as immoral souless insane murderers is just plain ridiculous. And now the cold-war's over, the same nonsense and propoganda is being aimed at the "rag-heads."

I find it ironic that now it is you telling me that "it isn't only in movies and on TV" when it was you who criticised me using films as analogies in my previous arguments. Funny how these are "not just on TV" when it coincides with your argument.

The idea that terrorsts are all madmen is quite frankly wrong. As very many sensible people have pointed out - you do not want madmen on a terrorist operation, as they are clearly and inherantly unreliable.

Even sociopathic despots know better than to arm unstable free-agents. That is one of the reasons why Saddam did not like Osama. Of course, dumbass yanks do not have his sense. RE: Contras, RE: Guatemala, RE: Castro, RE: Bin Laden, RE: Kurds and Saddam, etc etc.

I mean, even Saddam knew better than to help Bin Laden, something the CIA didn't. Mind you, the CIA didn't even know not to help Saddam, or the Kurds, or install the Shah of Iran, etc, etc.

that's not rhetorical. i really would like your input.

<These anti-US> terrorists exist because they are (justifiably) dissatisfied with US foreign policy. To instigate more militaristic and imperialistic foreign policies is not going to fix it. "Hyuck, maybe if we just keep doing it more and bigger, it'll do a U-turn and do the exact opposite" - Nuh-uh.


but in the process, we have all but crippled the biggest terrorist ring in the world.

Personally I think that is rubbish. I am totally in agreement with the BBC reporter who created that series explaining just why Al Qaeda is merely smoke and mirrors. It was a small group of cranks who managed to pull off a coup due to the total incompetence of the US government.

There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas, and who will use the techniques of mass terror - the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear.

But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

If you can get a chance to see this series, I strongly urge you do. It details the number of ways in which the US manufactued "Al Qaeda" - and used marketing techniques and PR to make an inneffective group of malcontents into a specteral super-powerful organisation.

the resounding retort would be: "yes, but you have created thousands of new future terrorists in the orphaned young, ect.

This is undeniable. Any objective inquirey into Islamism preceding 9/11 would show just how disorganised and limited their influence was. By smearing the imagery all over the world (more so than the discontent caused by the military operations, which I am going to overlook quite charitably in your favour) the US has managed to give so much air-time to these radicals that they have effectively rejuvenated a dying organisation and given it a new lease of life.

Westernised Muslims who were unwilling to give up their fashion and music, etc in order to follow strict and oppressive regimes have suddenly be polarised (what a surprise that "Uniter Bush" divides foreigners as much as his country) - making otherwise moderate people lean to the extremes.

Suddenly, Al Qaeda (who the US has made to look like a powerful and influential force in all its media, despite it being an incredibly insignificant non-entity in any objective sense, even to the fact that it is the US that gave it a name and linked otherwise disparate groups) is not such an unnattractive prospect.

Would you like to guess which nation gives the most air-time to Bin Laden? It's not the arabs, I can tell you that for nowt.

The yanks made Al Qaeda in more ways than one (IE the support the CIA gave to the Mujahadeen et al to fight the USSR) and now they expect everyone else to clean up after them.

And those that out of goodwill offer to help, like Madrid, get bombed by a threat created and fuelled solely by the US's imperialism. Thankyou policemen of the world...

ok, fine.
solutions?
Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, "We still live in a dangerous world." Thanks to you, you fucker!

What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks! They're arming the fucking world man. You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know during the Persian Gulf war those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons - incredible weapons." How do you know that? "Uh, well... We looked at the receipts Haar." "Ah but as soon as that cheque clears, we're going in." "What time's the bank open? 8? We're going in at 9." "We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a foetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you fucking need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!" Ohoh looks like Mr. Major was on the hot seat there for a second too. - Bill Hicks.

That's my solution. Quit arming the world. Oh, too late, the US has armed everyone, and now the Nuclear genie is out of the *UNITED STATES* bottle, and they want everyone else to help put it back in again.

The US government has pulled a "General Ripper" on us, and now we all have General Turgidson telling us that pre-empting thermonuclear war is the only way to *save* lives. "10-20 million dead, tops. Depending on the breaks."

and put virtually all the blame on the US.
basically we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.....while the europeans, ect...laugh and mock and curse us....all with no personal responsibility in the matter.

Yeah, damned if you don't. Of course you would've been the victims of terrorism if you had simply minded your own business and avoiding mass-murdering innocent civillians in imperialistic wars. How dare the french and germans not take responsibility for Osama Bin Laden and Saudi hijackers. It was after all the french who armed and funded them. It is the Germans who are in bed with the Saudis. It is the Europeans who have single-handedly vetoed any single UN settlement for peace between Israel and Palestine.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

oh wait.....didn't Britians prime minister stand side by side with Bush against Iraq and the intelligance reports.
oh, but nevermind....this all america's doing...

The UK *followed* the US. Remember, we haven't had a single (Non-IRA related) terrorist attack here in well over a decade. And the last one (Lockerbie) only coincidentally happened over UK soil (could've equally detonated over the sea, etc) and was a retaliation against the USS Vincennes instigating an unprovoked attack on an Iranian civil air-liner in Iranian airspace anyway.

The UK's government has had a hand in this, but merely through being complicit. An accomplice *after the fact.* It is not the UK government who has been funding Bin Laden. It is not the UK government that has stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, it is not the UK government who has subverted attempts at broking peace deals in the middle-east. John Kerry is not much better than Bush. In the UK parliament, there are PLENTY of vocal detractors that opposed the war. The Lib Dem party (third most powerful party, and quite possibly the new opposition party for the upcoming general election) opposed it from the off, many Labour (Blair's own party) party members were against it, and both Robin Cook [The then foreign minister] and Clare Short (both members of the Cabinet) resigned over it.

That's quite a different story from the hand-over-foot subserviance of congress.


anyway...solutiuons, dear Ace?
concrete, detailed ones....any?

Solutions? So an American expects a European to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into? Well, for starters get rid of the imperial Hubris. Impeach your government. All of them. We are talking a witch-hunt of McCarthyian status. *ALL* of those with Iraq-dirtied hands need the boot. Preferably trials for warcrimes at Geneva.

Only then can anyone have the slightest bit of faith in the US government. The US government talks about freedom, justice, international law, etc etc. Time to abide by them.

Removal of the US from the security council. The US has done more to subvert the UN than any other nation. Having bought votes, blackmailed and extorted people into obediance, it has forfeited its right to have a controlling say on world politics. It has neither the integrity or the dignity to adequetly fulfill such a role.

It should use some of the wasted budget it squanders on its military to setup an independant national news service, solely concerned with presenting factual, hard-hitting, impartial news, instead of the dumbed down and often false propoganda that is being spoon-fed.

It should educate instead of indoctrinating its populace.

Hell, the US needs a whole new attitude if it wants to be acceptable to the rest of the world.

[Qdrop]

Which one would that be?

um..Al Queda
(yah, i know...it was rhetorical)


I wasn't aware it was one big connecting one. I bet that's why there haven't been kidnappings and beaheadings, oh and car bombs, yah we sure crippled a NOUN. And in saying that you cleaned up your own mess, doesn't that leave us back to 0...

i never said we destroyed terrorism.
but we did cripple the most complex terrorist organization that had existed.

car bomb and beheadings by random clusters of disorganized faction insurgents is not the same as a well orchestated multi-plane hijacking of 4 US planes and crashing them into american soil targets.


Like those Drugs that have been defeated, Terrorism has been stopped. You might think we defeated Terrorism by cutting the head off, when in reality we only stepped on it's tail.

point taken with the drug war.

look, i'm no idealist....the liberal cornered that market.
i am fully aware that terrorism can never be erradicated completely through war.
disorganized and scattered....but not destroyed.
the destruction you cause by fighting it just causes the birth of more terrorists....

our intial tactics (as far as afganastan and our hunt for al queda leaders) were sound.
we must now use new tactics....
such as attacking terrorism at the real soure: poverty, education, and the perception of imperialist tactics (that being us).

[Ace42]

Afganistand WAS harboring the man responsible for 9/11...

No, they weren't. At the time they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden until there was some evidence (not even conclusive proof) that he was responsible. I have yet to see any proof, except for a tape of him confessing, made over a year after the event, which even the US news channels said "might be fake" and was probably just him capitalising on the publicity ANYWAY.

If OBL had made it to the UK, the UK government would have been prohibited by national law from extraditing him to the US. By your argument, the UK would've had to be bombed as "a significant part of the Al Qaeda network."

And, as a critically ill and old man, at best he could've been a figurehead. There is no evidence to suggest he is a mastermind, or in any way shape or form pragmatically involved with the operation on the WTC.

Saying he was responsible for 9/11 would be like saying the Pope is responsible for the IRA.

they (the taliban) DID have a hand in this and WERE a terrorist training ground/safe harbor.

No, that's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.

The 9/11 hijackers had *NOTHING* to do with the Taliban, and neither did the Embassy bombers.

[synch]

whoa....
don't lump Afganistan with Iraq.

Afganistand WAS harboring the man responsible for 9/11....
they (the taliban) DID have a hand in this and WERE a terrorist training ground/safe harbor.

Iraq, granted...was nothing of the sort.
True... but... large parts of the country were bombed and invaded and the results were (as far as I know) marginal. Plus, if you really had to point a finger to a country the country would have been Saudi Arabia, but we all know that pointing the finger to Bush's buddies was a big no-no.

[yeahwho]

True... but... large parts of the country were bombed and invaded and the results were (as far as I know) marginal. Plus, if you really had to point a finger to a country the country would have been Saudi Arabia, but we all know that pointing the finger to Bush's buddies was a big no-no.

synch is firing on all cylinders. North Korea, ha! They don't have the love juice we so desire.

At the official level, the Saudi government is appalled by the attacks, and publishes a statement calling them "regrettable" and "inhuman." Although it is known almost immediately that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the Al Qaeda plot are Saudi citizens, months pass before the Saudi government will admit it.

America's subsequent war on terror in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda deeply divides Saudis. But Saudi leaders quietly allow the U.S. military to use Saudi air bases for command and control operations.

Saudi militants captured in Afghanistan will make up the largest segment of the population shipped to the prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/cron/)

[Calimero jr.]

I'm still waiting for the "proofs" of a link between the ex-iraqi government and 9/11. Oh no wait, the war started because of huge amounts of WMD's in Iraq that were about to threaten the entire Galaxy.......ah, no, no, no, now they admit that there were NO WMD's in Iraq, it was a war to free the Iraqi people.....but hey, they're still NOT free.......oh f*** what a mess I'm :confused:

What a waste....

[Qdrop]

I find it ironic that now it is you telling me that "it isn't only in movies and on TV" when it was you who criticised me using films as analogies in my previous arguments. Funny how these are "not just on TV" when it coincides with your argument.

yeah well, my stance does not come from movies or TV...
there are plenty reports and documentation throughout recent history that suggest the attempt of rogue operations/terrorists attempts at getting nuclear armorment.

the same cannot be said for vet's going "nicholas cage/conair" crazy SOLEY because of military operant conditioning.

(let's not open that can of worms again, ok?)


The idea that terrorsts are all madmen is quite frankly wrong. As very many sensible people have pointed out - you do not want madmen on a terrorist operation, as they are clearly and inherantly unreliable.

Even sociopathic despots know better than to arm unstable free-agents. That is one of the reasons why Saddam did not like Osama. Of course, dumbass yanks do not have his sense. RE: Contras, RE: Guatemala, RE: Castro, RE: Bin Laden, RE: Kurds and Saddam, etc etc.

I mean, even Saddam knew better than to help Bin Laden, something the CIA didn't. Mind you, the CIA didn't even know not to help Saddam, or the Kurds, or install the Shah of Iran, etc, etc.


agreed....they aren't "tactical" madmen anyway.

and i agree with RE: Contras, RE: Guatemala,RE: Bin Laden, RE: Kurds and Saddam, etc etc.

but Castro, though.....i own video biography and books on the fellow....
i don't know of any signifacant military aid prior to 1959.....and even then it was relatively insignificant.....it was more tactical info for starting his initial revolt.


<These anti-US> terrorists exist because they are (justifiably) dissatisfied with US foreign policy.

here's the thing, though.
granted, we do engage in imperialistic manuevers to gain/sustain 1st world power.
but i DO beleive there is a GREAT DEAL of propaganda and mind-twisted anti-america sentiment that is fed to much of the middle eastern world in general.

i am assuming you've seen "Control Room"...the doc about Al jazeera....

such propaganda is an invaluable tool when looking to galvanize a group of tribal, dis-enfranchised peoples.

propanda has value on BOTH sides

To instigate more militaristic and imperialistic foreign policies is not going to fix it. "Hyuck, maybe if we just keep doing it more and bigger, it'll do a U-turn and do the exact opposite" - Nuh-uh.

agreed.


Personally I think that is rubbish. I am totally in agreement with the BBC reporter who created that series explaining just why Al Qaeda is merely smoke and mirrors. It was a small group of cranks who managed to pull off a coup due to the total incompetence of the US government.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

If you can get a chance to see this series, I strongly urge you do. It details the number of ways in which the US manufactued "Al Qaeda" - and used marketing techniques and PR to make an inneffective group of malcontents into a specteral super-powerful organisation.


i'll have to check it out.
seems a tad implausible though.



Would you like to guess which nation gives the most air-time to Bin Laden? It's not the arabs, I can tell you that for nowt.

agreed...it's propaganda in a sense.
though mostly it's about ratings....


The yanks made Al Qaeda in more ways than one (IE the support the CIA gave to the Mujahadeen et al to fight the USSR) and now they expect everyone else to clean up after them.

yes....and i've made this point as well.
you are preaching to the choir.



That's my solution. Quit arming the world. Oh, too late, the US has armed everyone, and now the Nuclear genie is out of the *UNITED STATES* bottle, and they want everyone else to help put it back in again.


agreed.


How dare the french and germans not take responsibility for Osama Bin Laden and Saudi hijackers. It was after all the french who armed and funded them. It is the Germans who are in bed with the Saudis. It is the Europeans who have single-handedly vetoed any single UN settlement for peace between Israel and Palestine.


slow down...
do you need me to google up some links showing just how bed much of europe is with middle easter oil countries....
as WELL as military aid....




The UK *followed* the US. Remember, we haven't had a single (Non-IRA related) terrorist attack here in well over a decade. And the last one (Lockerbie) only coincidentally happened over UK soil (could've equally detonated over the sea, etc) and was a retaliation against the USS Vincennes instigating an unprovoked attack on an Iranian civil air-liner in Iranian airspace anyway.

The UK's government has had a hand in this, but merely through being complicit. An accomplice *after the fact.* It is not the UK government who has been funding Bin Laden. It is not the UK government that has stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, it is not the UK government who has subverted attempts at broking peace deals in the middle-east. John Kerry is not much better than Bush. In the UK parliament, there are PLENTY of vocal detractors that opposed the war. The Lib Dem party (third most powerful party, and quite possibly the new opposition party for the upcoming general election) opposed it from the off, many Labour (Blair's own party) party members were against it, and both Robin Cook [The then foreign minister] and Clare Short (both members of the Cabinet) resigned over it.

That's quite a different story from the hand-over-foot subserviance of congress.


the US would not have gone in without britain support.
period.



Well, for starters get rid of the imperial Hubris. Impeach your government. All of them. We are talking a witch-hunt of McCarthyian status. *ALL* of those with Iraq-dirtied hands need the boot. Preferably trials for warcrimes at Geneva.


i would like very much to see that.


Removal of the US from the security council. The US has done more to subvert the UN than any other nation. Having bought votes, blackmailed and extorted people into obediance, it has forfeited its right to have a controlling say on world politics. It has neither the integrity or the dignity to adequetly fulfill such a role.

that would never happen.
that would only further our perceived "evil" status....


It should use some of the wasted budget it squanders on its military to setup an independant national news service, solely concerned with presenting factual, hard-hitting, impartial news, instead of the dumbed down and often false propoganda that is being spoon-fed.

It should educate instead of indoctrinating its populace.


i like that as well.

[Qdrop]

No, they weren't. At the time they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden until there was some evidence (not even conclusive proof) that he was responsible. I have yet to see any proof, except for a tape of him confessing, made over a year after the event, which even the US news channels said "might be fake" and was probably just him capitalising on the publicity ANYWAY.

If OBL had made it to the UK, the UK government would have been prohibited by national law from extraditing him to the US. By your argument, the UK would've had to be bombed as "a significant part of the Al Qaeda network."

And, as a critically ill and old man, at best he could've been a figurehead. There is no evidence to suggest he is a mastermind, or in any way shape or form pragmatically involved with the operation on the WTC.

Saying he was responsible for 9/11 would be like saying the Pope is responsible for the IRA.


i'm not buying it, Ace.
now you're treading in "conspiracy nut" water.

you will have show alot of documentation to convince of this theory.


No, that's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.

i of course have issue with them as well.


The 9/11 hijackers had *NOTHING* to do with the Taliban, and neither did the Embassy bombers.

the Taliban and afganastan WAS harboring Bin laden and WAS training ground for terrorists, ACe...

but i agree that the REAL culprit here is Saudi Arabia.
they are the cash pipeline for much of these enterprises.

but we do nothing because they are our dope dealers (oil).

[yeahwho]

but we do nothing because they are our dope dealers (oil).
"The invasion of Iraq was simply a war crime, straight out war crime... The United States invaded Iraq to gain control of one of the major sources of the world's energy, right in the heart of the world's energy producing regions, to create, if they can, a dependent client state, to have permanent military bases, and to gain what's called 'critical leverage' - I'm quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski - to gain critical leverage over rivals, the European and Asian economies... It's been understood since the Second World War, that if you have your hand on that spigot, the source of the -world - main source of the world's energy - you have what early planners called 'veto power' over others. Iraq is also the last part of the world where there are vast, untapped, easily accessible energy resources. And you can be sure that they want the profits from that to go primarily to U.S.-based multi-nationals and back to the U.S. Treasury, and so on. Not to rivals. There are plenty of reasons for invading Iraq." Your buddy Noam

[racer5.0stang]

No, they weren't. At the time they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden until there was some evidence (not even conclusive proof) that he was responsible. I have yet to see any proof, except for a tape of him confessing, made over a year after the event, which even the US news channels said "might be fake" and was probably just him capitalising on the publicity ANYWAY.

If Osama was not responsible for the attacks, then why make a tape taking responsibility for it. Why not come out of hiding and say, "Hey that wasn't me!" That is another issue, if Al Qaeda is not as resourceful as the media has made them out to be, then why have we not found Osama?

[Ace42]

there are plenty reports and documentation throughout recent history that suggest the attempt of rogue operations/terrorists attempts at getting nuclear armorment.

Like the "incubator baby" reports? Or the reports on Halabja?

it was more tactical info for starting his initial revolt.

Certainly tactical, but I find it hard to believe that the time he spent in the US was solely as a military tourist.

but i DO beleive there is a GREAT DEAL of propaganda and mind-twisted anti-america sentiment that is fed to much of the middle eastern world in general.

It's not just the middle-east. Europeans are not looking for any excuse to hate on the US. The UK are supposedly the US's greatest friends and Allies, and yet anti-US sentiment is rife. Where there's smoke, there's fire as the saying goes.

i am assuming you've seen "Control Room"...the doc about Al jazeera...

such propaganda is an invaluable tool when looking to galvanize a group of tribal, dis-enfranchised peoples.

Yes, I did. I fail to see how Control Room shows Al Jazeera to be a propoganda engine. If anything I'd think it shows the exact opposite.

that would never happen.
that would only further our perceived "evil" status....

Why? The UN permanent security council only has a handful of members. The US being relegated to the bench with every other nation on the planet (Bar the USSR, France, England, China) is hardly that ignoble. You'd still be in such illustrious company as Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, and don't forget Poland.

i'm not buying it, Ace.
now you're treading in "conspiracy nut" water.

you will have show alot of documentation to convince of this theory.

I'd say that thinkign Al Qaeda is to blame is a "conspiracy theory."

The Hijackers on 9/11 were armed with plastic knives, and merely flew planes into buildings. That is not difficult, and requires no significant orchestration. Anyone with a copy of MS Flightsim can train this to their heart's content. if you warez it, you don't even have to fork out $40 for the game.

A handful of people could do this incredibly easily. I have the technical aptitude to do this, and I am not funded by any organisation whatsoever.

Blaming it on some massive international Muslim conspiracy strikes me as being much more of a conspiracy theory than the much simpler (and thus more fitting with Ockham's Razor) theory that it was a small action implemented by a handful of dissatisfied people.

The hardest part of the whole operation is being able to pick optimum flights for the job, hardly a difficult challenge in itself.

It is exclusively the insecurity and arrogance of the US population ('How could a handful of people dare challenge the infernal might of the world's only remaining super power?!? It MUST be a criminal network, not unlike James Bond's SPECTRE!') and the fear-mongering of the Neo-Cons that gives credibility to this argument.

Don't confuse the incompetence of the US authorities with the abilities of the terrorists.

the Taliban and afganastan WAS harboring Bin laden and WAS training ground for terrorists, ACe...

There is little to no evidence to suggest that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, and there DEFINITLY wasn't when the US went in.

Re·spon·si·ble Audio pronunciation of "responsible" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spns-bl)
adj.
3. Being a source or cause.

"In law there can be correlation without causality" - there have been plenty of Muslims calling for retaliation against the US. To say they are "responsible" for 9/11 is very misleading.

The US singled out Bin-Laden and Al Qaeda as a scapegoat for their own incompetence, and in doing so exagerrated the situation out of all recognition.

If by "harbouring Bin Laden" you mean "They had an elderly old man living in their country, in total compliance with international law" then yes, yes the were. But as I said, if Bin Laden had turned up on an English beach in a rowing boat, the UK would have been obliged to "harbour" Bin Laden.

And "it was a training ground for terrorists" - no, no it wasn't in any objective sense. The Taliban's militia were their standing army. They are no more "Terrorists" than the US marines are. Furthermore, drug-producing warlords had their own militias. These were to do with national and tribal infighting, NOT to do with planning operations in the US.

Remember that "Al Qaeda training camp" they found in Iraq? Remember that it clearly wasn't? Think that times a dozen in Afghanistan.

The only reason Afghanistan hasn't been as ridiculed as Iraq is because it is yesterday's news and when it was "today's news" people were too busy wrapped up in 9/11 indignation to ask the questions they have been about Iraq. It was just as much of a white elephant, and the fact that an aged and critically old man was saying "Someone needs to put the US in their place" to any crank that would listen does not legitimise the US invasion in any way shape or form.

The US went into Afghanistan for one reason and one reason only. Caspian Sea Pipeline. Noam Chomsky saw it coming over a decade before.

[synch]

Because he's been living in the Pentagon basement since 2002.

[Ace42]

If Osama was not responsible for the attacks, then why make a tape taking responsibility for it. Why not come out of hiding and say, "Hey that wasn't me!" That is another issue, if Al Qaeda is not as resourceful as the media has made them out to be, then why have we not found Osama?

Because:

1. The US was going to blame him anyway. Saddam said "I don't have any WMDs, come and see" and the US steamrolled him ANYWAY. Denying it would've made no difference whatsoever. He'd've got himself electrecuted toot-sweet and everyone would be singing patriotic hymns about the wicked witch being dead.

2. By riding on the wave of US publicity, he could turn a defunct group of ex USSR-rebels into a powerful and famous organisation. Something it wasn't before hand. Radical Islamism was on its last legs before Sept 11th.

3. Because your government is incompetent, and wasn't looking. Read the news. More cops on the street of Manhatten than in Afghanistan. Rumours that Bin Laden never was in Afghanistan. US soldiers security the area for the Caspian Sea Pipeline.

Seems implausible? They did exactly the same in the great WMD hunt in Iraq. Seize the weapons at Al Qataa? Why, when we can hold the oil-ministry instead!

Finding one crazy old man in several expansive countries is much harder than cracking a massive terrorist network with links in every corner of the world and members on every street. Al Qaeda is hard to nail down in the same way that the WMDs are hard to find. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Well, at least not as you know it.

[racer5.0stang]

TIME will tell. :D

[Ace42]

TIME will tell. :D

"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past. "
- Kane, Red Alert.

Time will tell what the victors want you to know. Nothing more.

[Qdrop]

Because:

1. The US was going to blame him anyway. Saddam said "I don't have any WMDs, come and see" and the US steamrolled him ANYWAY. Denying it would've made no difference whatsoever. He'd've got himself electrecuted toot-sweet and everyone would be singing patriotic hymns about the wicked witch being dead.

2. By riding on the wave of US publicity, he could turn a defunct group of ex USSR-rebels into a powerful and famous organisation. Something it wasn't before hand. Radical Islamism was on its last legs before Sept 11th.

3. Because your government is incompetent, and wasn't looking. Read the news. More cops on the street of Manhatten than in Afghanistan. Rumours that Bin Laden never was in Afghanistan. US soldiers security the area for the Caspian Sea Pipeline.

Seems implausible? They did exactly the same in the great WMD hunt in Iraq. Seize the weapons at Al Qataa? Why, when we can hold the oil-ministry instead!

Finding one crazy old man in several expansive countries is much harder than cracking a massive terrorist network with links in every corner of the world and members on every street. Al Qaeda is hard to nail down in the same way that the WMDs are hard to find. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Well, at least not as you know it.

i'm just not buying it, Ace.
i'll make a point to watch that documentary...
but your theory on bin laden, and al queda being smoke and mirrors just seems too implausible.

it just doesn't follow known convention for some random old guy to claim responsibility for 9/11 and the SS cole among others, when has nothing to do with it....while the true ringleader(s) remain silent.
history has shown that the perpatrators of terrorist attacks take immediate responsibility for them...that is the key point of thier cause. "we did this, pay attention to us, our demands, and our cause".
why would the real perpatrators remain silent, then.
it doesn't follow convention.

i dunno.....this an area i need to do more research on, to be honest.

NONE of US are terrorist experts, that's for sure.

[Ace42]

it just doesn't follow known convention for some random old guy to claim responsibility for 9/11 and the SS cole among others, when has nothing to do with it....while the true ringleader(s) remain silent.

Not a "random" old guy. A vocal dissident who had achieved notoriety for his criticism of US policy and advocacy of violent retribution.

The fact that he agrees with the sentiments of hte 9/11 hijackers, or that he tells people that performing terrorist actions against the US is a good idea does not make him literally responsible. It does however make him a great scapegoat and focus for propoganda, and the ultimate excuse for targetting a country that is not directly associated with 9/11, and has significant links with Bush's oil companies and a thwarted attempt at a key Oil pipeline.

history has shown that the perpatrators of terrorist attacks take immediate responsibility for them

Which supports my case. I was waiting for ages after 9/11 for him to say "ahahaha, NOW YOU WILL SEE!"

It was not immediate, it wasn't until after the US had already started threatening Afghanistan. That alone is highly suspect.

[Qdrop]

so your theory is that the 9/11 hijackers worked pretty much alone....their own little faction...
they all died......

bin laden sees this....decides to take credit for it and biuld up this failing muslim terrorist scene.....?

and afganastan was innocent as far as terrorist activity....just wrong place, wrong time? scapegoats.

so where do the terrorists come from (countries)?...where does the money, training, weapons come from now?

[yeahwho]

so your theory is that the 9/11 hijackers worked pretty much alone....their own little faction...
they all died......

bin laden sees this....decides to take credit for it and biuld up this failing muslim terrorist scene.....?

and afganastan was innocent as far as terrorist activity....just wrong place, wrong time? scapegoats.

so where do the terrorists come from (countries)?...where does the money, training, weapons come from now?

Terrorism comes in all forms, as we (US Policy) while away in Iraq, the one hotspot we've had credible intellingence on for the past decade is making demands. Now they want our attention. This is a real threat to the World. How is Bush going to handle it? He is spending 5 billion dollars a month in Iraq, yet North Korea is going to be passed along to the other world powers? Risky business, we just stole the Worlds 2nd largest untapped oil reserves, they may be in no mood to do our dirty work.

Read (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7605614)

[Ace42]

so your theory is that the 9/11 hijackers worked pretty much alone....their own little faction...
they all died...

Pretty much. Not all died. No doubt there were accomplises, but only a handful, and only in a tertiary sense. The people who got them forged passports need not be terrorists nor Muslims. Ditto for the people who got them computers and flight sims and flight-training manuals. Either way, it certainly doesn't amount to a vast network.

bin laden sees this....decides to take credit for it and biuld up this failing muslim terrorist scene.....?

Bin Laden gets blamed for it, and rather than make denials that everyone knows will not be believed, decides to be "hung for a sheep as well as a lamb" and plays the hand he's been dealt for all it's worth.

and afganastan was innocent as far as terrorist activity....just wrong place, wrong time? scapegoats.

Quite, you've said yourself there are many more likely suspects.

so where do the terrorists come from (countries)?...where does the money, training, weapons come from now?

We are talking about 9/11 right? Saudi. The money could've come from anywhere. Plane-tickets to the US don't cost the moon on a stick, and fake-passports aren't exactly in the "ICBM" price range. Where did they get the money? They had a good day at the tracks, pulled home $500s worth, and that was all they needed. Knowing that they were embarking on a suicide mission, they sold their dear old mum's wedding ring. Or some Palestinians sold off their dad's stuff after he was brutally executed by the IDF, and mailed them to their cousins in Saudi. Like I said, *I* could've perpetrated a strike on the WTC, and I am not funded by anyone.

Where do the weapons come from? Plastic knives? Must be MI5. Or the Taliban's top secret plastic knife and WMD plant...

Training? MS flightsim. Has everything you could need to know on it, and can be acquired cheaply and easily (or even freely on the net). How hard is it to put a plastic knife to a stewardess's throat, barge into the cockpit, and turn off the auto pilot? Answer: Not hard.

Now? After the US has botched up everything? All over the middle-east. Plenty of Iraqis no doubt looted weapons from the panicing and defunct Republican Guard. There is apparently an AK in most Iraqi houses. Some no doubt will come from Al Qataa, which the US totally failed to seal.

People? Probably not so many from Saudi, they are having their own problems. Many from Palestine, no doubt. Plenty from Syria and the Lebanon.

[ASsman]

car bomb and beheadings by random clusters of disorganized faction insurgents is not the same as a well orchestated multi-plane hijacking of 4 US planes and crashing them into american soil targets.
Hardly well organized, they didn't even crash at the same time. And one was shot down, why the rest weren't? I dunno.

[Señor Stino]

And I doubt it needs to be stated that the US has more nukes than the rest of the world put together

indeed it does not have to be stated because it is false

read here (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/index.html)

Russian Federation alone owns more warheads than the US, so your statement is far from true

[ASsman]

Meh, from what I read you're wrong. Be more specific and quote some figures.

[Señor Stino]

i could be wrong here, but i read:

According to estimates by the Natural Resources Defense Council, by 1991, the Soviet Union had approximately 35,000 weapons in its stockpile, down from a peak in 1986 of approximately 45,000. Russia is estimated to now have around 20,000 nuclear weapons, although total stockpile size is uncertain because there is no accurate count of tactical nuclear weapons.
(+ 3,000 and 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads.)

and also:

the United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons, including approximately 10,600 intact warheads, 7.650 of which are considered active or operational.


I must say that I took a quick look on this website, I just wanted to point out that US does not have more nukes than the rest of the world put together.

where did I read wrong?

[Ace42]

It does not mention the yield, or the number of MIRVs (multiple independant re-entry vehicles) per warhead.

The USSR might've had more warheads, but they might be low-yield warheads only capable of hitting one target each. The USA might well have less warheads, but they split into multiple MIRVs which can hit more targets.

[ASsman]

Yah, I was wondering something like that.

[Running_Beastie]

Echewta: Belarus no longer has nukes unless they have secretly developed them since the end of the Cold War, which I seriously doubt. All of the former Soviet satelite nations dismantled their nukes thanks to US and Russia efforts and money immediately after the collapse of the USSR. The nukes for North Korea are for deterence. They would only use them if the US did invade, and then they would use them simply to inflict as many casualties as possible before they went down. If Bush wants to get rid of Kim Jong Il, his best bet is not to isolate North Korea, but to open up to them completely. There was a great article in the NY Times in the past week or so about how over the past decade Kim Jong Il's power began to decline when North Korea was opened up the slightest little bit causing Kim to clamp down suddenly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/opinion/09kristof.html

Bush Bites His Tongue
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

There are two words the Bush administration doesn't want you to think about: North Korea.

That's because the most dangerous failure of U.S. policy these days is in North Korea. President Bush has been startlingly passive as North Korea has begun churning out nuclear weapons like hot cakes.

The dangers were underscored with last week's reports that the uranium in Libya's former nuclear program may have come from North Korea. Indeed, Mr. Bush seems to recognize that his policy has failed - that's why he isn't talking much about North Korea now, at least publicly, and why (as reported in The Times today) he sent an emissary to talk last week with the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, about how to tame North Korea.

North Korea is particularly awkward for Mr. Bush to discuss publicly because, as best we know, it didn't make a single nuclear weapon during Bill Clinton's eight years in office (although it did begin a separate, and secret, track to produce uranium weapons; it hasn't produced any yet but may eventually). In contrast, the administration now acknowledges that North Korea extracted enough plutonium in the last two years for about half a dozen nuclear weapons.

In fairness, Mr. Bush is paralyzed only because the alternatives are dreadful. A military strike on North Korea's nuclear sites might have been an option in the early 1990's, but today we don't know where the plutonium and the uranium are kept, so a military strike might accomplish little - but trigger a new Korean war. To fill the time, Mr. Bush has pursued six-party talks involving North Korea, but they have gotten nowhere.

So what would work?

The other option is the path that Richard Nixon pursued with Maoist China: resolute engagement, leading toward a new "grand bargain" in which Kim Jong Il would give up his nuclear program in exchange for political and economic ties with the international community. This has the advantage that the best bet to bring down Mr. Kim, the Dear Leader, isn't isolation, but contacts with the outside world.

A terrific new book on North Korea, "Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader" by Bradley Martin, underscores how those few glimpses that North Koreans have had of the outside world - by working in logging camps in Russia or sneaking trips to China - have helped undermine Mr. Kim's rule. Yet Westerners have in effect cooperated with him by helping to keep his borders sealed.

At least China and South Korea have a strategy to transform North Korea: encourage capitalism, markets and foreign investment. Chinese traders, cellphones and radios are already widespread in the border areas, and they are doing more to weaken the Dear Leader than anything Mr. Bush is doing.

North Korea is the eeriest and most totalitarian country I've ever visited, making even Saddam Hussein's Iraq seem normal by comparison. I realized how regimented the entire country was when I stopped two girls randomly on the street for an interview on a 1989 trip and the girls started praising their leaders - reciting identical lines in perfect unison.

In his new book, Mr. Martin tells the story of how one of the Dear Leader's assistants, while drunk, told his wife about his boss's womanizing. The wife, apparently a true believer in the North Korean system, was shocked and wrote a letter to the leadership to protest this immorality.

The Dear Leader had the woman brought to him, then denounced her before a crowd and ordered her shot. At that point, her husband begged to be allowed to kill her. Graciously acceding, Mr. Kim handed him a gun to kill his own wife.

So this is a regime that is not just menacing, but monstrous. Mr. Bush is right to regard it with loathing. But U.S. policy on North Korea for the last four years has only strengthened Mr. Kim and allowed him to expand his nuclear arsenal severalfold.

The risk is that Mr. Bush will respond to the failure of his first term's policy by adopting an even harder line in the coming months, seeking Security Council sanctions (he won't get them) and ultimately imposing some kind of naval quarantine. That would only strengthen Mr. Kim's grip on power, as well as risk a war on the Korean peninsula. A Pentagon study in the 1990's predicted that such a war could kill one million people.

In short, our mishandling of North Korea has been appalling - and it may soon get worse.

[ASsman]

Nothing new there, same ole.

[Whois]

The 9/11 hijackers had *NOTHING* to do with the Taliban, and neither did the Embassy bombers.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....can't you just go along with the majority?

:D

[Señor Stino]

It does not mention the yield, or the number of MIRVs (multiple independant re-entry vehicles) per warhead.

The USSR might've had more warheads, but they might be low-yield warheads only capable of hitting one target each. The USA might well have less warheads, but they split into multiple MIRVs which can hit more targets.

good point, but maybe MIRV's are considered "strategic atomic weapons",

and you mention .." ussr might have had more warheads"... yes, and the Russian Federation still HAS more warheads than USA, almost double the amount

ah well, ... does not matter, i've made my point

[Ali]

total stockpile size is uncertain because there is no accurate count of tactical nuclear weaponsThat's reassuring.

Hell, as long as we have a rough idea of how many nukes we have, we're bound to notice if one goes missing, especially as we have soldiers guarding them who haven't been paid in ages.

Imagine 20,000 nukes all going off at the same time?

[ASsman]

Hmm, I can't.

[Ali]

Hmm, I can't.My wife can, after feeding me a curry!!!!!