RE: by fredgiblet

Some science about liquid explosives:

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

...and a bit more, just so you'll know that safe, easy-to-use binaries are out there:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-li
quid.htm

Quote:
In order to accommodate the user who needs smaller quantities to do a job, "binary" or "two-part" explosives are available. One popular brand is called Kinepak. As embodied in the commercially available product Kinepak, two individual, nonexplosive components are combined by the user to form a cap sensitive explosive. The first component, referred to as "the liquid" is predominantly nitromethane (NM). The other component, referred to as "the solid" is primarily finely divided ammonium nitrate (AN). The commercial product Kinepak is packaged in several different sizes and shapes of plastic bottles as well as foil pouches (bags) which are intended for various applications. In each case, the solid component container is supplied with an appropriate amount of premeasured liquid in another individual container.

The liquid component of the Kinepak is classified as a "Flammable Liquid" for transportation purposes. The solid component is classified as an "Oxidizer". Although both are considered hazardous materials, neither is defined as an explosive for transportation (U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT regulations) or storage (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF regulations).

And just for fun, a product link for Kinepak.

http://www.slurryexplosive.com/product/page8.html

p.s. Be sure to check out the tech sheet for Kinepak. Nice pictures of what it looks like and how it's mixed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Fredgiblet,

It reminds me of o-chem lab. We had to make dinitro-toluene on our way to making luminol. In order to get the nitration reaction to go we had to heat it, but if we went 2 C too high, we'd get trinitro-toluene - TNT for short. So temperature control is very critical for some reactions. (That was a fun lab.)

Here is an MSDS for nitromethane. It's volatile, toxic, and has an auto-ignition temperature of 35 C (the human body is 37 C). It's one of those compounds that wouldn't get past a scanner-sniffer, should the government ever decide to use them.

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/n5740.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:44 AM

I think there are only two things that work for preventing terrorism:

1. Give people with grievances like muslims (it's not just religious stuff, we killed millions of their people) a public political forum to voice those grievances where it will actually make a difference (and maybe they can convince us to stop genocidally slaughtering them, perhaps in exchange for a consession or two)

2. Make better airplanes, buildings, etc. It's entirely possible to make an aircraft compartmentalized so that a terrorist blows up only himself and his own travelling companions, and not the rest of the passengers, the crew and the craft. It's possible to make buildings that don't fall down when a plane flies into them, oh, wait, we already have that one covered.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:27 AM

There is a third way: annihilate the people with grievances. Messy, but it would work faster than the other ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:41 AM

Nah, it doesn't work at all, it creates more greviances which would be held by other people. I'm sure John Sununu, Ralph Nader and Tony Salhoub are unhappy about the bombing of Lebanon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:16 AM

Does Southwestern chili count? Does in my book.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think there are only two things that work for preventing terrorism:

1. Give people with grievances like muslims (it's not just religious stuff, we killed millions of their people) a public political forum to voice those grievances where it will actually make a difference (and maybe they can convince us to stop genocidally slaughtering them, perhaps in exchange for a consession or two)

2. Make better airplanes, buildings, etc. It's entirely possible to make an aircraft compartmentalized so that a terrorist blows up only himself and his own travelling companions, and not the rest of the passengers, the crew and the craft. It's possible to make buildings that don't fall down when a plane flies into them, oh, wait, we already have that one covered.

I'm new here, so pardon the interruption. How can you make an airplane safe from explosions? Almost all of the airliners systems(Fuel lines, wires, oxygen, Rutter rigs, etc..)run the length of the fuselage. An explosion in any compartment would surely damage the integrity of these systems. And you can't put 8 inch thick steel reinforced concrete walls on airplanes. They are made from very light material.

As far as your other point, Genocidal slaughter? Only in the minds of people who believe we are there to kill Muslims. It really is a ridiculous term to use, since it can be used to describe the killing in any war. But it's a wonderful rallying cry for progressives. Isn't it? Why use it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I'm new here, so pardon the interruption. How can you make an airplane safe from explosions? Almost all of the airliners systems(Fuel lines, wires, oxygen, Rutter rigs, etc..)run the length of the fuselage. An explosion in any compartment would surely damage the integrity of these systems. And you can't put 8 inch thick steel reinforced concrete walls on airplanes. They are made from very light material.

You can’t. You can’t build a plane that will be safe from an arbitrary explosive device. You can profile the passengers for suspicious behavior and appearance and then interrogate possible likely suspects before permitting the plane to board. Even that is not a guarantee of safety, but it is the closest that you’ll ever get, except the banning of all civilian flight.

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
As far as your other point, Genocidal slaughter? Only in the minds of people who believe we are there to kill Muslims. It really is a ridiculous term to use, since it can be used to describe the killing in any war. But it's a wonderful rallying cry for progressives. Isn't it? Why use it?

Dreamtrove likes to use “diplomatic” language.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Dreamtrove likes to use “diplomatic” language.

Though that is probably how they see it. Do we discount it because that's not what we intended?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though that is probably how they see it. Do we discount it because that's not what we intended?

First of all, it’s not what we did or are doing. It’s categorically false. Secondly, most propaganda should probably be discounted, or at least evaluated carefully for truthfulness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:31 PM

Good to know Finn. I'll just bring along my "Guide to the BullS**T tongue of a progressive".

But wouldn't that bring on cries of "Racial Profiling, that other diplomatic word? Also, it just may hurt someones feelings. And that is not nice my friend.

*Edit* Sorry second part was about checking people before boarding. When I reread my post, after I sent it, it was hard to follow. I'll do better in the future.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all, it’s not what we did or are doing. It’s categorically false. Secondly, most propaganda should probably be discounted.

But that's how THEY see it. OBL says "They'll attack an oil rich nation!" Then we attack an Oil rich nation. We know we're not doing it to kill the brown person, but they don't know that.

And strangly enough saying "Well we can just ignore what they think/feel" doesn't help all that much.

You don't beat Terrorists by blowing them all up, we know we tried, but what would us dumb arse brits know about these things eh?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But that's how THEY see it. OBL says "They'll attack an oil rich nation!" Then we attack an Oil rich nation. We know we're not doing it to kill the brown person, but they don't know that.

Maybe, but that’s not a justification to run around calling what we are doing in Iraq or anywhere else “genocide.” That’s nothing more then an excuse to make inflammatory untrue statements.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
But wouldn't that bring on cries of "Racial Profiling, that other diplomatic word? Also, it just may hurt someones feelings. And that is not nice my friend.

*Edit* Sorry second part was about checking people before boarding. When I reread my post, after I sent it, it was hard to follow. I'll do better in the future.

Well, the pros and the cons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:03 PM

There are many ways to make airplanes that aren't easy to blow up, even if you use the present fuel system. The fuel could be far from the passengers, like in rutan's round the world plane. you could build the compartments out of some strong light substance like titanium aluminum alloy, or amorphous crystal of aluminum.

It's really pretty easy, like making a plane that doesnt' crash, only no one does it because our society is run by neanderthals who either can't think or don't care or both.

Genocidal slaughter, that's what I call it when you kill a couple million people. If it's a rallying cry for the progressives (these guys are far left, right? am I wrong? they're some sort of left.) - then they're more together than I thought. It was Bill Clinton who took the most genocidal stance, cutting off the iraqi's food and medical supplies - but the israeli's have a pretty racist pogram going.

If you don't know, I gather you got the point, I'm somewhat of a reactionary. I think the problem with Bush is that he's too much like Clinton.

Certainly, since I was speaking about how the muslims would view the situation, this is certainly how *they* would view it. And I'm not entirely sure they're wrong. I know the other reasons we're there, and if people want, we can debate those.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe, but that’s not a justification to run around calling what we are doing in Iraq or anywhere else “genocide.” That’s nothing more then an excuse to make inflammatory untrue statements.

It's not just Iraq though, the west has been a little bit 'killy' with the middle east for sometime. I'm under no illusions as to who invented the fun game of Kurd gassing.

Besides I don't think DT's got the market cornered on 'untrue inflammatory statements' so far on this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's really pretty easy, like making a plane that doesnt' crash, only no one does it because our society is run by neanderthals who either can't think or don't care or both.

Is it anything like building boats that can't sink?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
There are many ways to make airplanes that aren't easy to blow up, even if you use the present fuel system. The fuel could be far from the passengers, like in rutan's round the world plane.

If you're talking about Voyager, the whole plane was a fuel tank, the passengers were surrounded on all sides by fuel.

Quote:
you could build the compartments out of some strong light substance like titanium aluminum alloy, or amorphous crystal of aluminum.

Titanium-Aluminum is heavier than Aluminum, heavier materials require more power, more power requires more fuel, more fuel means more (and more vulnerable) fuel tanks.

Quote:
It's really pretty easy

And incredibly expensive...

Quote:
Genocidal slaughter, that's what I call it when you kill a couple million people.

So then America commited genocide against the Germans and Japanese in WW2? What would have been the result if we hadn't?

Quote:
but the israeli's have a pretty racist pogram going.

Israel is racist? If you call being attacked constantly by people of the same race, and killing said people then yes I guess they are racist. But if the Arabs would stop trying te destroy Israel then Israel would have no reason to kill the Arabs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
There are many ways to make airplanes that aren't easy to blow up, even if you use the present fuel system. The fuel could be far from the passengers, like in rutan's round the world plane. you could build the compartments out of some strong light substance like titanium aluminum alloy, or amorphous crystal of aluminum.

It's really pretty easy, like making a plane that doesnt' crash, only no one does it because our society is run by neanderthals who either can't think or don't care or both.

Genocidal slaughter, that's what I call it when you kill a couple million people. If it's a rallying cry for the progressives (these guys are far left, right? am I wrong? they're some sort of left.) - then they're more together than I thought. It was Bill Clinton who took the most genocidal stance, cutting off the iraqi's food and medical supplies - but the israeli's have a pretty racist pogram going.

If you don't know, I gather you got the point, I'm somewhat of a reactionary. I think the problem with Bush is that he's too much like Clinton.

Certainly, since I was speaking about how the muslims would view the situation, this is certainly how *they* would view it. And I'm not entirely sure they're wrong. I know the other reasons we're there, and if people want, we can debate those.

Who has the trillions of dollars to pay for this? The airlines? The government? Who?

Hey 'Trove, Come closer
*Whispers* Don't tell anyone, but there are millions of Muslims that are happy with the west. Well, its true. But being a reactionary you don't want to hear that do you? And where has there been a couple million people killed? Are you being tongue and cheek and I'm just not getting it. If so silly me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's not just Iraq though, the west has been a little bit 'killy' with the middle east for sometime. I'm under no illusions as to who invented the fun game of Kurd gassing.

Neither am I. Which kind of proves my point. If you want to see real attempts at genocide look at what the Arabs have been doing to themselves for centuries, probably millennia. On the hand, what the West is doing in Iraq, or anywhere else, is categorically not genocide or genocidal, no matter how you try to spin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Neither am I. Which kind of proves my point. If you want to see real attempts at genocide look at what the Arabs have been doing to themselves for centuries, probably millennia. On the hand, what the West is doing in Iraq, or anywhere else, is categorically not genocide or genocidal, no matter how you try to spin.

Not really since I was refering to the RAF, last time I checked Britain was a western nation. But since I assume you thought I meant Saddam maybe you could explain to me who sold him those gas canisters?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But since I assume you thought I meant Saddam maybe you could explain to me who sold him those gas canisters?

That would be me...but don't tell anyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not really since I was refering to the RAF, last time I checked Britain was a western nation. But since I assume you thought I meant Saddam maybe you could explain to me who sold him those gas canisters?

Maybe you could explain to me who used them. Because that's the end where the genocide occurs.

And I don’t remember the RAF committing any such acts, in my life time, or since the Geneva Conventions. If you’re talking about acts that took place in World War I, so what? If you go back far enough every nation has committed atrocities of one kind or another. The Italians have the RAF beat, what with the scorching of Carthage and Corinth, the near complete genocide of the Gauls and the subsequent total destruction of every European nation short of Ireland and Germany.

Oh yeah, and they killed Christ.

Those damn Italians!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:16 PM

Quote:
And I don’t remember the RAF committing any such acts, in my life time, or since the Geneva Conventions. If you’re talking about acts that took place in World War I, so what?

Do me a favour

.

You people are still harping on about the war of independence; it was two hundred years ago get over it!

And the Jews, man still taking about the holocaust, it was years ago.

The acts to which I refer took place in the 1920's, not during the 1st world war. It's also recent history, as is a lot of western action in the Middle East. If you think things that happened in the 1920's are irrelevant you really don't know very much about people.

Quote:
The Italians have the RAF beat, what with the scorching of Carthage and Corinth, the near complete genocide of the Gauls and the subsequent total destruction of every European nation short of Ireland and Germany.

Oh yeah, and they killed Christ.

Those damn Italians!

Actually that was the Romans, Romans Italians, not the same people.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You people are still harping on about the war of independence; it was two hundred years ago get over it!

And the Jews, man still taking about the holocaust, it was years ago.

The acts to which I refer took place in the 1920's, not during the 1st world war. It's also recent history, as is a lot of western action in the Middle East. If you think things that happened in the 1920's are irrelevant you really don't know very much about people.

You’re right the RAF is a bunch of genocidal bastards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re right the RAF is a bunch of genocidal bastards.

Well if that's your attitude they have absolutly nothing on the US Airforce

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well if that's your attitude they have absolutly nothing on the US Airforce .

You’re confused. This is your attitude. You’re the one saying that since the RAF may have attempted genocide in 1920 that this makes the RAF genocidal today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:35 PM

No Finn, but nice attempt at twisting my words.

But since that's the game we're now playing:
You're position is that if we do it it is good, if they do it it is bad.

We are altruistic, they are evil. If we kill a whole lot of people it's for their own good, if they kill a whole lot of people it's because they're genocidal maniacs.

Now we've got the bullshit out of the way maybe we could get to something a bit more usefull, or do you prefer this crap?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You're position is that if we do it it is good, if they do it it is bad.

We are altruistic, they are evil. If we kill a whole lot of people it's for their own good, if they kill a whole lot of people it's because they're genocidal maniacs.

Nope. Never said anything remotely close to that. What I did say is that what we are doing in the Middle East is categorically not genocide. And that is a true statement. Why didn’t “this crap” end there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I keep noticing this phrase: the PROS and CONS.

That would be progressives and neo-cons (we put the con in con-servative!).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

You were doing so well ! I was literally just thinking you'd come back to firefly a much improved Finn. What happened ?? !!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:50 PM

Are you saying you agree with me or you don't agree with me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:01 PM

Quote:
Finn:

What I did say is that what we are doing in the Middle East is categorically not genocide.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it dulls the pain. No, I'm actually not just trying to be an ass, even if that was a snide remark, I think we're at the very least very close to that line. I think when Clinton cut off food and medical supplies, we crossed that line. Thank God, (or the 2000 election?) that we've pulled back from that stance, but I think this is right on the edge of that definition:

Quote:
READ ME: (from wikipedia)

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Are we trying to debilitate their society to prevent them from competing? Not on a public policy or military command level, but somewhere in the back room decision making? - yes, sure, someone here and in israel definitely has that agenda. Maybe multiple someones.

Are we trying to lower the islamic birth rate? Sure, but then our govt. has been trying to lower our birth rate for some time (anyone ever noticed this? virtually all of the PC platforms can be translated into: "no more babies")

Are we trying to exterminate the whole arab race? No, of course not, I don't think anyone believes that, except maybe the arabs. But it can be genocide by the above definition very long before that. I think people would say the US had a genocidal stance towards blacks when we had slavery, and towards indians when we wanted their land. Early Americans weren't trying to literally kill every Indian (ok, some were) but to displace them from the land. It was still genocide. Israel has the same genocidal stance towards palestinians.

Finn,

And this is a serious point.

Denial does not make it go away. I'm sure on the road to being a hardened criminal, there's a very long line of denials which take place. I'm not a thief, I'm disadvantaged, society owes me this - I'm not a killer, I just drove the car. Pretty soon it's Where is it written that I am a bad guy?

We crossed the line between right and wrong some time ago and we kept barrelling along like a juggernaut. Torture is public policy. We keep people in cages, we kill children, and do so intentionally. (sure, they're combatants) But an endless rationalization doesn't get you out of the hole. We're becoming like our enemies, or worse. We need to seriously recoil. We need to pull back to sanity, and take a serious long hard look at ourselves. Who are we? Are we Nietzsche's machiavellian army who attacks and conquers devoid of moral conscience simply because we have the firepower to do so? At least to some extent we must be, but to what extent? Is there merit in the idea, or will the old world order be lost for ever and replaced with total chaos surrounding the collapse of the complete untennable nightmare one world state?

I think there's a whole bunch of thinking that no one did ahead of time, and now we are here, and we should stop and think.

Don't just shake it off. Stop and think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:10 PM

If that is the definition of Genocide. I see nothing wrong with doing it. Killing the members of certain terrorist groups could be viewed by some as genocide. I'm okay with it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
READ ME: (from wikipedia)

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Are we trying to debilitate their society to prevent them from competing? Not on a public policy or military command level, but somewhere in the back room decision making? - yes, sure, someone here and in israel definitely has that agenda. Maybe multiple someones.

Thank you, Dreamtrove. I think you’ve made my case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:57 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
If that is the definition of Genocide. I see nothing wrong with doing it. Killing the members of certain terrorist groups could be viewed by some as genocide. I'm okay with it.

Alright someone who believes in fucking Genocide...My kind of guy...You are talking to a bunch of arrogent cyber shit eaters...That makes you one fuckface!!!

chris eatsshitisall

Hey chris nice e-mail...Love how you got all "New York on me" What a fuckin joke..I live in New York tough guy..Let me know we can meet for drinks...you ball sack.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
If that is the definition of Genocide. I see nothing wrong with doing it. Killing the members of certain terrorist groups could be viewed by some as genocide. I'm okay with it.

Alright someone who believes in fucking Genocide...My kind of guy...You are talking to a bunch of arrogent cyber shit eaters...That makes you one fuckface!!!

chris eatsshitisall

Hey chris nice e-mail...Love how you got all "New York on me" What a fuckin joke..I live in New York tough guy..Let me know we can meet for drinks...you ball sack.

I withdraw my genocide post, so I will not be viewed as being aligned with lunatics. Glad I am not you "Chris"! This is the first time I have seen someone challenged to a fight online. Rather comical. Kaneman you are a troll. A very vulgar one at that. There are children that post on these boards. That makes you repulsive. In the future "ignored" you will be. Thank you for the famous browncoat welcome. *middle finger held high*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nope. Never said anything remotely close to that. What I did say is that what we are doing in the Middle East is categorically not genocide. And that is a true statement. Why didn’t “this crap” end there?

For the love of...

Look, the very simple concept that I'm trying to impart which you keep missing is that it wasn't long ago that we were being pretty genocidal to the peoples of the Middle East, and these genocidal actions were still occurring in the last one hundred years. People are probably still alive that hold them in living memory, so whether we've learnt from our mistakes now is pretty irrelevant to the people of the Middle East.

One minute we're dropping bombs on them to fulfil our imperialist machinations and the next we're telling them we've changed and the bombs are dropping for their own good.

Then you turn around and make overtures to the effect of "what they think doesn't matter". Dream may have misused the word Genocide but it is far from irrelevant as you'd like to paint it.

And frankly the only thing that ‘tips the scales’ to what we tend to be doing all over the Middle East at the moment away from Genocide at the moment is merely intent.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then you turn around and make overtures to the effect of "what they think doesn't matter". Dream may have misused the word Genocide but it is far from irrelevant as you'd like to paint it.

No. I’ve never made any such overture. What I’ve said about genocide was factually correct, and that some people in the Middle East may have a different perception, doesn’t change what is. If you’re interrogating someone whom you think believes that you’re going to kill him, but you, in fact, have no intention to do so, do you tell him that you’re going to kill him because that’s what you think he believes, or do you tell him the truth? Evidently, you think that we should lie about our intent, because that’s what you believe some in the Middle East want to here. But I don’t think so. And neither does Dreamtrove. His use of genocide has nothing to do with preception. Dreamtrove is using untrue inflammatory language because he disagrees with the war in Iraq or actually believes this stuff, either way, he’s factually wrong, and you’re justifying it. You could just as easily disagree with the war in Iraq or hold a general anti-war sentiment and still tell Dreamtrove that he is over the top (or at least not throw a fit when I do), but you don’t, and it undermines your whole position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:15 AM

I believe what I said was we're very close to that line.

When we do the following, it's at least questionable, and I think this does beg the question, who are we? from a moral civilized standpoint.

Things we or israel are doing at least to some degree:

1. Destroy the infrastructure of arab societies.
2. Ideologically oppose their religion, and claim it needs to be 'reformed.3. Kill, torture and displace without any real concern.
4. Poison the local environment.

OTOH

Blocking food and medical supply from a civilian population is clearly over the line.

For those who want to say 'that was contingent' I would say it's always contingent. All military tactics are contingent on at the very least surrender. It's a genocidal tactic which is out of bounds.

So,

Is what we are doing now 'genocide'? No, I said it wasn't, but it's close to the line.

Does anything that the US or Israel has done fit that category? Sure, some stuff is over the line.

Do arabs and muslims view it that way? Sure, of course they do.

Do are tactics harm our moral authority? Sure, they're barbaric.

Do we need those tactics in order to win? Possibly.

Is winning worth it, the loss of stature, the loss of values, the loss of freedoms? That's a subjective call. If you really want One World Govt., the oil, and buffer states ie breathing room for Israel, then, well, you decide. I'd say not a chance.

Is winning even possible? Probably not. Once you've occupied a population which views you as "Great Satan" who believes you have a genocidal campaign against them, and which has sworn to destroy your occupying force, the battle will never truly be over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then you turn around and make overtures to the effect of "what they think doesn't matter". Dream may have misused the word Genocide but it is far from irrelevant as you'd like to paint it.
No. I’ve never made any such overture. What I’ve said about genocide was factually correct, and that some people in the Middle East may have a different perception, doesn’t change what is. If you’re interrogating someone whom you think believes that you’re going to kill him, but you, in fact, have no intention to do so, do you tell him that you’re going to kill him because that’s what you think he believes, or do you tell him the truth? Evidently, you think that we should lie about our intent, because that’s what you believe some in the Middle East want to here. But I don’t think so. And neither does Dreamtrove. His use of genocide has nothing to do with preception. Dreamtrove is using untrue inflammatory language because he disagrees with the war in Iraq or actually believes this stuff, either way, he’s factually wrong, and you’re justifying it. You could just as easily disagree with the war in Iraq or hold a general anti-war sentiment and still tell Dreamtrove that he is over the top (or at least not throw a fit when I do), but you don’t, and it undermines your whole position.

It's funny how you throw a fit and act like I'm twisting your words while that's all your doing with mine.

The overtures you've made are exactly what I said they were, you said that they're interpretation and what they think is irrelevant, if the British had that attitude with the IRA we'd still have IRA bombs exploding in London, so I'm particularly happy you're not making British policy, we're better off for it.

And actually I think DT at least partly meant their interpretation (in fact he did, it's right there in another post) you're the one who threw a fit and started to try and make me out as a Terrorist loving crazy loon who thinks the west is a bunch of genocidal maniacs, all I said was that the word Genocide had some bearing on the conversation. I also remember saying that that's not what we were currently doing, oh look something you accuse me of NOT doing here:
" You could just as easily disagree with the war in Iraq or hold a general anti-war sentiment and still tell Dreamtrove that he is over the top". What twisting my words not enough you've got to flat out lie as well?

Actually what I think is quite obvious if you read it rather than scan it for quotes you can take out and twist.

Here’s my original post:
“Though that is probably how they see it. Do we discount it because that's not what we intended?”
First part is implying (obviously) that that’s not we’re doing. The second part is a question to which you essentially replied “yes”.

Since all you want to do is play these stupid games, fine.

You believe it's okay to kill innocent civilians as long as its for their own good. You believe (and this is taking your own example) that we've tied up the Middle East and we're now torturing them for information and that's okay because we're telling them we're not going to hurt them. Wow way to undermine your own position.

I’m not going to just take you trying to paint me as this or that like CTS did, Finn, if you don’t like that, tough.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:33 AM

Finn,

That's a cheap shot. Two things. One, I didn't say our tactic in Iraq right now is a genocidal one, I don't believe that's the case. But Israel wants to ethnically cleanse palestine, and Clinton used genocidal tactics, so the arabs, who certainly view it as a regional conflict, see all whites (and blacks) as one force.

But also, "because he's against the war" is a cop out. Why am I against the war. Could it be the evershifting questionable objective? or the barbaric tactics? (And genocide aside, destorying the infastructure, torture, etc., that's barbarism)

You know I supported the Gulf War, I've said so about 100 times on this forum. Kuwait, an ally of the US was invaded by a socialist megalomaniac with regional conquest ambitions and a thirst for oil. Which is basically what Bush 41 said about him when we went in.

So, if I oppose this conflict, I have reasons. I didn't always, btw. I thought taking Saddam Hussein out probably worth doing. I began to have my doubts when the massive clintonesque bombing began (this is not the way guys.) But then after the topple of Saddam and the govt. was set up, I thought, maybe that was worth it. I think you'll recall I posted a lot of stuff like that. Maybe this will work, etc. But then we made a fatal error. We did not strike a deal with people who actually did represent power in Iraq. War dragged on.

Ending war is an art, and it's one of diplomacy. That's how you end an unwinnable war, and a war in which you are trying to occupy a population that hates you is an unwinnable war (Unless you really want to be the USSR.) So that's when you move in with the diplomatic plan.

And so I thought maybe we did, we got Al Sadr to come in and participate, and I was on board. But then later, it seemed like that was a fluke, and in a real broader sense, these guys didn't have a diplomatic plan. I'm not even sure they had a military strategy. They have lots of bombs.

Then the pattern became clear. Once you had an intractable conflict underway, go and start another one. The allied team of US-Israel-Britain, with some less important helpers, is engaged in a war in Afgh, and then, Iraq. That should have been the tip off. Israel itself spun from instability into war in Palestine, and then invaded Lebanon. Now we conducted some operations in Somalia, and there's talk of forces in Sudan, a future conflict with Syria, and war with Iran.

I get it. This war isn't about some particular issue like the occupation of Kuwait, or removing a dictator, it it was, we'd be done long ago. This war is about war. It's big expansionist war. Global Conflict = World War. I II III. Got it. Waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The overtures you've made are exactly what I said they were, you said that they're interpretation and what they think is irrelevant, if the British had that attitude with the IRA we'd still have IRA bombs exploding in London, so I'm particularly happy you're not making British policy, we're better off for it.

I never made any such overture, and you know it.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I also remember saying that that's not what we were currently doing,

Yeah I saw that. It’s clear that you are able to evaluate the situation objectively; you’re just not willing to argue it that way. If I say that the US/UK are committing genocide against the Arabs. You’ll say nothing to correct that statement, even though you know it is patently false. But if I say that the US/UK are not committing genocide, you’ll throw a fit using the anti-Western perception in the Middle East as a pretext to attack an argument you know to be true. On top of that you use this opportunity to distort the opinion of someone who agrees with you.

Let me remind you of what Dreamtrove said:

“Give people with grievances like muslims (it's not just religious stuff, we killed millions of their people) a public political forum to voice those grievances where it will actually make a difference (and maybe they can convince us to stop genocidally slaughtering them, perhaps in exchange for a consession (sic) or two)”

Dreamtrove was not talking about perception; he made a statement of fact. This is the argument that you are defending. My only position was that this statement was untrue and inflammatory, which I found curious from a person who recently posted a thread about reducing such inflammatory language. You don’t agree with what Dreamtrove said, and I never believed you did. You’re distorting your own argument.

However, I’m sure you’re committed the lie either way, and I have to go to work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's a cheap shot. Two things. One, I didn't say our tactic in Iraq right now is a genocidal one, I don't believe that's the case. But Israel wants to ethnically cleanse palestine, and Clinton used genocidal tactics, so the arabs, who certainly view it as a regional conflict, see all whites (and blacks) as one force.

True, we are not committing genocide in Iraq right now, but neither was Clinton. And I don’t know that Israel has practiced ethnic cleansing in the Palestinian Authority, but I do know that many Arab leaders have proclaimed the intent or threatened to commit genocide against Israel. How is it that you claim to want to prevent inflammatory discussion, while throwing around the word genocide with little or no bases for its use? It's a pretty strong word to be using irresponsibly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cuhmal:
I never made any such overture, and you know it.

I know nothing of the sort. I asked whether the way they perceive it should be ignored, you're answer can only be seen as a yes, and you're subsequent responses seem to support that position.

Quote:
You don’t agree with what Dreamtrove said, and I never believed you did. You’re distorting your own argument.

Actually you are the only person distorting my argument. I never said we were committing genocide right now; I said we have been and in recent history, I also said that the difference in our intention is a little hard to grasp by someone who used to have a house where that crater is.

Quote:
However, I’m sure you’re committed the lie either way, and I have to go to work.

Well Finn the only person who has been demonstrated to be lying so far is you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:35 AM

Finn,

call it what you like, we killed or aided in the killing of an awful lot of non-combatants, and did so unquestionably intentionally. That's not where I want to be.

I never made any pretense to defend arab leaders (many of those who have called for the destruction of israel are our allies.) But there's a difference between inflamatory rhetoric and action. Does, or did hamas and islamic jihad have a genocidal stance against israel at one point? sure. can they be talked out of that position? under the right circumstances, which were the ones we had before the invasion of lebanon and the arresting of the PA.

But, what this is really about is what you feel is an unbalanced word, like islamo-fascist, or terrorist (when used broadly.)

So I take the point. I would say we've killed/assisted in the killing of a million plus of their people, which I'd call a genocide. I don't agree that it was an irresponsible use, or even a misuse, I think it's a genocide, but I see where it's an inflamatory word so I'll temper the language, retire the word. I see the shoe on the other foot, but I hope you do as well.

Word neutrality-wise I'd rephrase that:

Our agressive campaign seems to care little for its impact on civilian populations, a fact which has not escapes the notice of the affected population. Nor my own. I think that as a nation, this is not the sort of military option that a 'civilized' nation would engage in, hence my use of the word 'barbaric' which I'm not retiring. Torture is barbaric.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Neither. I wasn't refering to whatever position you take. It was that you were able to make an argument and stick to it without devolving into transparent "I never said that (exactly)" and ad hominem snit fits.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Are you saying you agree with me or you don't agree with me?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I never made any pretense to defend arab leaders (many of those who have called for the destruction of israel are our allies.) But there's a difference between inflamatory rhetoric and action. Does, or did hamas and islamic jihad have a genocidal stance against israel at one point? sure. can they be talked out of that position? under the right circumstances, which were the ones we had before the invasion of lebanon and the arresting of the PA.

You don’t spend a lot of time criticizing the Arab side of the argument, do you? What makes you think that Hamas could be talked out of their genocidal stance? The right circumstances just happened to have occurred right before Israel defended itself from Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s attacks. Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah want to kill a bunch of Jews, and the only criticism you have is that the Jews, by defending themselves, are to blame for their being killed? That’s brilliant.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But, what this is really about is what you feel is an unbalanced word, like islamo-fascist, or terrorist (when used broadly.)

The word itself isn’t unbalanced. It’s just your usage that concerns me.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Our agressive campaign seems to care little for its impact on civilian populations, a fact which has not escapes the notice of the affected population. Nor my own. I think that as a nation, this is not the sort of military option that a 'civilized' nation would engage in, hence my use of the word 'barbaric' which I'm not retiring. Torture is barbaric.

How do you explain the March On Baghdad strategy as opposed to the carpet bombing we did in 1991? How do you explain our refusal to target military targets that might have been used by civilians, even when by not destroying those targets we put our own people in danger? In fact, the 2003 gulf war was probably one of the most civilian-friendly wars in history. During the height of the bombing most people in Baghdad still had power and water. We left bridges intact. We used all precision guided missiles, as opposed to mostly carpet bombing in the 1991 war. And this was all done as a matter of policy to avoid civilian deaths and civilian inconvenience. When the bombing was over we sent billions in humanitarian aid to rebuild infrastructure, the majority of which was pre-existing damage. The bombing campaign was so precise and so conscious of civilian life that this was perhaps the first war in history, since the invention of the Howitzer, which resulted in less damage then already existed. All of these actions speak to a desire to limit civilian loss of life, and indeed that was the stated position of both the US and British governments.

Your statement even flies in the face of the criticism of this war: too few soldiers, failure to secure Saddam’s force, too willing to negotiate with militant faction leaders. These criticisms are a direct result of the US/UK effort to conduct this war in a humanitarian a way as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:50 PM