Nuclear proliferation
-
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization charged with monitoring nuclear energy worldwide, contends that the recent nuclear disclosures show that the system put in place at the height of the cold war to contain nuclear weapons technology has ruptured and can no longer control the new nuclear trade. ... In the years before Pakistan's first test in 1998, Dr. Khan and his team began publishing papers in the global scientific literature on how to make and test its uranium centrifuges. In the West, these publications would have been classified secret or top secret. But Dr. Khan made no secret of his motive: he boasted in print of circumventing the restrictions of the Western nuclear powers, declaring in a 1987 paper that he sought to pierce "the clouds of the so-called secrecy." ... Dr. Khan, a fervent nationalist, has condemned the system that limits legal nuclear knowledge to the five major nuclear powers, or that has ignored Israel's nuclear weapon while focusing on the fear of an Islamic bomb. "All Western countries," he was once quoted as saying, "are not only the enemies of Pakistan but in fact of Islam." :mad: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan[^] ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
yeah pakisthan is actually the center of terror, but USA turns a blind eye on them because, USA considers pakis as stratigic state in the southasia. Programming is an art not a skill, every one can be a skilled programmer but not an artist.
-
Brit wrote: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!USA! USA! USA!
After catching SmackDown on the telly last night* it seems apparent that a nice loud totally-out-of-place patriotic chant will calm most people down when the sovereignty of their government is so clearly threatended. You should write to them for a job, with talent such as yours you will go far!! * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes :-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization charged with monitoring nuclear energy worldwide, contends that the recent nuclear disclosures show that the system put in place at the height of the cold war to contain nuclear weapons technology has ruptured and can no longer control the new nuclear trade. ... In the years before Pakistan's first test in 1998, Dr. Khan and his team began publishing papers in the global scientific literature on how to make and test its uranium centrifuges. In the West, these publications would have been classified secret or top secret. But Dr. Khan made no secret of his motive: he boasted in print of circumventing the restrictions of the Western nuclear powers, declaring in a 1987 paper that he sought to pierce "the clouds of the so-called secrecy." ... Dr. Khan, a fervent nationalist, has condemned the system that limits legal nuclear knowledge to the five major nuclear powers, or that has ignored Israel's nuclear weapon while focusing on the fear of an Islamic bomb. "All Western countries," he was once quoted as saying, "are not only the enemies of Pakistan but in fact of Islam." :mad: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan[^] ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
I actually find myself agreeing with what appears to be world opinion on this one, and disagree with the Bush administation's overall strategy. If Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons it is only because Pakistan had not gotten around to helping them out yet - being too busy helping out so many others. If we were going to fight a war against the source of 9/11 type terror (which, lets face the truth, effectively means a war on Islam itself), Pakistan should have been one of our first targets, not one of our allies.
-
USA! USA! USA!
After catching SmackDown on the telly last night* it seems apparent that a nice loud totally-out-of-place patriotic chant will calm most people down when the sovereignty of their government is so clearly threatended. You should write to them for a job, with talent such as yours you will go far!! * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes :-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
David Wulff wrote: * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes Oh come on Dave Just be a man and own up to your lycra fetish, there's worse things u know :-D pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here Fuzzy Dot Net Articles 1-4 Start Here PathFinder Game Of Life 2 Life Wars
-
David Wulff wrote: * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes Oh come on Dave Just be a man and own up to your lycra fetish, there's worse things u know :-D pseudonym67 Neural Dot Net Articles 1-11 Start Here Fuzzy Dot Net Articles 1-4 Start Here PathFinder Game Of Life 2 Life Wars
-
USA! USA! USA!
After catching SmackDown on the telly last night* it seems apparent that a nice loud totally-out-of-place patriotic chant will calm most people down when the sovereignty of their government is so clearly threatended. You should write to them for a job, with talent such as yours you will go far!! * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes :-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
David Wulff wrote: After catching SmackDown on the telly last night* it seems apparent that a nice loud totally-out-of-place patriotic chant will calm most people down when the sovereignty of their government is so clearly threatended. Hell Yeah! People think they know me Say I'm on the little tight Tell me I go looking for trouble That I'm always ready for a fight Well I'm just an easy going guy Not crossing any line I'm a caring individual Most of the time Most of the time? Try a lot of the time It's just that It's just that It's just that Oh hell yeah Sometimes I drink a little beer Sometimes I make a little mess Sometimes I get a little angry Sometimes I kick a little ass Well you know sometimes I kick a lot of ass Oh hell yeah Some people seem unhappy With certain things I say They seem to think I'm impolite That I'm cultured in someway But I'm just an easy going guy And I appreciate their advice I believe in self-improvement And always being nice Well sometimes being nice Occasionally It's just that Oh hell yeah Sometimes I drink a little beer Sometimes I make a little mess Sometimes I get a little angry Sometimes I kick a little ass Well you know sometimes I kick a lot of ass Well you know Oh hell yeah Oh hell yeah Oh hell yeah Oh hell yeah Oh hell yeah Oh yeah Sometimes I drink a little beer Sometimes I make a little mess Sometimes I get a little angry Sometimes I kick a little ass Well you know sometimes I kick a lot of ass Well you know Oh hell yeah Sometimes I drink a little beer Sometimes I make a little mess Sometimes I get a little angry Sometimes I kick a little ass Well you know sometimes I kick a lot of ass Well you know Oh yeah Oh yeah Sometimes I kick a little ass ==== Stone Cold Steve Austin Lyrics Song: Oh Hell Yeah Lyrics really crappy website i got the lyrics from[^] :)
-
Brit wrote: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil. The question of whether Iraq recently had WMD, had long-term intentions of getting them, and has sought to aquire them are three different questions. What I find surprising in the story is this quote: It was a Dubai middleman claiming to represent Dr. Khan who in 1990, on the eve of the Persian Gulf war, offered Dr. Khan's aid to Iraq in building an atom bomb. So, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, after condemnations by the UN and nations around the world, after assembling a multinational force to evict Iraq from Kuwait, Dr Khan offered help to Iraq to build a nuclear device? Did Dr Khan step right out of a James Bond movie? Is there anyone at all that he won't help to build a nuclear device? ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
I actually find myself agreeing with what appears to be world opinion on this one, and disagree with the Bush administation's overall strategy. If Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons it is only because Pakistan had not gotten around to helping them out yet - being too busy helping out so many others. If we were going to fight a war against the source of 9/11 type terror (which, lets face the truth, effectively means a war on Islam itself), Pakistan should have been one of our first targets, not one of our allies.
Stan Shannon wrote: If we were going to fight a war against the source of 9/11 type terror (which, lets face the truth, effectively means a war on Islam itself) We know that the terrorists come from Islamic countries, and that they appear to believe, and that their leaders use religious rhetoric -- but do they represent the true Muslim? (whatever that is) Should we condemn, and attempt to remove an entire religion because some of its proponents are dangerous and violent? There are countless examples of Christianity gone bad throughout past and even recent history. There are strong Christian religious leaders even in the US who preach hatred and divisiveness on teevee and radio programs. Obviously, they are different than what is going on in the Middle East, but what will they be like in 10 or 20 years? What will a catalyst such as an "enemy of our way of life" do? That line seems to have worked quite well for leaders of Islamic terrorists. Finally: how do we make the decision that one religion is good and another is bad?
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If we were going to fight a war against the source of 9/11 type terror (which, lets face the truth, effectively means a war on Islam itself) We know that the terrorists come from Islamic countries, and that they appear to believe, and that their leaders use religious rhetoric -- but do they represent the true Muslim? (whatever that is) Should we condemn, and attempt to remove an entire religion because some of its proponents are dangerous and violent? There are countless examples of Christianity gone bad throughout past and even recent history. There are strong Christian religious leaders even in the US who preach hatred and divisiveness on teevee and radio programs. Obviously, they are different than what is going on in the Middle East, but what will they be like in 10 or 20 years? What will a catalyst such as an "enemy of our way of life" do? That line seems to have worked quite well for leaders of Islamic terrorists. Finally: how do we make the decision that one religion is good and another is bad?
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: There are strong Christian religious leaders even in the US who preach hatred and divisiveness on teevee and radio programs. I would challenge you to name a single Christian minister of any kind of national prominence who publically advocates violence or hatred. The one or two you might mention do nothing more than preach. If they acted on those beliefs they would quickly find out how little we as a civilization, tolerate such behavior. To indicate that there is somehow an equivalency between the two cultures because there are a few vocal Christian ministers, none of whom advocate any kind of violence, compared to a very large percentage of Muslim ministers who are advocating violence of the most extreme sort, is rediculous. Aside from that, I'm sure everything you say is reasonably valid. I'm sure that most Muslims are just people who want to get through the day as peaceably and profitably as possible, just as people are everywhere. However, none of that matters if their culture is too incompentent or unwilling to deal with the few are not so mild mannered. If they can't do it, we must, and that "effectively" means a war against Islam, because it is those few, and not the many, who are effectively defining what Islam is. If the Muslim majority desires some other definition of what Islam is than it is their responsibility to do it, not mine and not yours.
-
Brit wrote: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long ?, as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody, simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. The USA is not evil, just a lot of people within the USA are pretty damn stupid. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil. At least we only stroked ourselves into a group-think (what ever that is) as opposed to you who seems to have been stroking inside the underpants or maybe smoking the insides of your underpants. Saddam was bad but not the worst dictator going around. He was convenient in that even the rednecks knew his name when they heard it due to Georgie Senior back in 90/91. He was in a part of the world with oil which is what y'all really give a shit about. And he hadn't been able to get back anywhere near full strength militry or wacko wise meaning he was easier to beat than many of the other dictator lead regimes elsewhere in the world. I still want to see the WMD, and you come up with some new material. It's old, like watching Jackie Gleason reruns. Michael Martin Australia "I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy." - Paul Watson 21/09/2003
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: There are strong Christian religious leaders even in the US who preach hatred and divisiveness on teevee and radio programs. I would challenge you to name a single Christian minister of any kind of national prominence who publically advocates violence or hatred. The one or two you might mention do nothing more than preach. If they acted on those beliefs they would quickly find out how little we as a civilization, tolerate such behavior. To indicate that there is somehow an equivalency between the two cultures because there are a few vocal Christian ministers, none of whom advocate any kind of violence, compared to a very large percentage of Muslim ministers who are advocating violence of the most extreme sort, is rediculous. Aside from that, I'm sure everything you say is reasonably valid. I'm sure that most Muslims are just people who want to get through the day as peaceably and profitably as possible, just as people are everywhere. However, none of that matters if their culture is too incompentent or unwilling to deal with the few are not so mild mannered. If they can't do it, we must, and that "effectively" means a war against Islam, because it is those few, and not the many, who are effectively defining what Islam is. If the Muslim majority desires some other definition of what Islam is than it is their responsibility to do it, not mine and not yours.
Stan Shannon wrote: To indicate that there is somehow an equivalency between the two cultures because there are a few vocal Christian ministers The very next sentence in my post begins: Obviously, they are different than what is going on in the Middle East. I know they are quite different, but I was trying to make the point that throughout history, religion has been used to justify hatred and violence. If we are going to destroy one religion because some of it's members are violent*, then we should take a look at other religions too. That's what I meant when I said: "Finally: how do we make the decision that one religion is good and another is bad?". * I do agree that something should be done about terrorism.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
-
Stan Shannon wrote: To indicate that there is somehow an equivalency between the two cultures because there are a few vocal Christian ministers The very next sentence in my post begins: Obviously, they are different than what is going on in the Middle East. I know they are quite different, but I was trying to make the point that throughout history, religion has been used to justify hatred and violence. If we are going to destroy one religion because some of it's members are violent*, then we should take a look at other religions too. That's what I meant when I said: "Finally: how do we make the decision that one religion is good and another is bad?". * I do agree that something should be done about terrorism.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Excuse me for being suspicious. I have had the growing feeling for a long time now that the left is using the fact of Islamic terrorism as a means of attacking Chrisitanity by artificially associating the two as some how equivalent in their ultimate goals. The irony of it all is that the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself, makeing them the closest equivalent in our culture to what is coming out of Islam. (Not to imply they are in any way actually guilty of terrorism) In fact, if you really think about it, this conflict is between the two most absolutist sources of moral authoritarianism in the world today - the human secularism of the left in the west and the Islamic Fundamentalism of the middle east. Christianity, as such, hardly has a role at all. (This is all doubly ironic when you stop to consider that the guy who the left hates the most, GWB, is doing the most to defend it.)
-
While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long ?, as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody, simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. The USA is not evil, just a lot of people within the USA are pretty damn stupid. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Excuse me for being suspicious. I have had the growing feeling for a long time now that the left is using the fact of Islamic terrorism as a means of attacking Chrisitanity by artificially associating the two as some how equivalent in their ultimate goals. The irony of it all is that the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself, makeing them the closest equivalent in our culture to what is coming out of Islam. (Not to imply they are in any way actually guilty of terrorism) In fact, if you really think about it, this conflict is between the two most absolutist sources of moral authoritarianism in the world today - the human secularism of the left in the west and the Islamic Fundamentalism of the middle east. Christianity, as such, hardly has a role at all. (This is all doubly ironic when you stop to consider that the guy who the left hates the most, GWB, is doing the most to defend it.)
Stan Shannon wrote: The irony of it all is that the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself, makeing them the closest equivalent in our culture to what is coming out of Islam. Would you care to list the items on this agenda so that we might better assess your claim of "closest equivalent"? John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization charged with monitoring nuclear energy worldwide, contends that the recent nuclear disclosures show that the system put in place at the height of the cold war to contain nuclear weapons technology has ruptured and can no longer control the new nuclear trade. ... In the years before Pakistan's first test in 1998, Dr. Khan and his team began publishing papers in the global scientific literature on how to make and test its uranium centrifuges. In the West, these publications would have been classified secret or top secret. But Dr. Khan made no secret of his motive: he boasted in print of circumventing the restrictions of the Western nuclear powers, declaring in a 1987 paper that he sought to pierce "the clouds of the so-called secrecy." ... Dr. Khan, a fervent nationalist, has condemned the system that limits legal nuclear knowledge to the five major nuclear powers, or that has ignored Israel's nuclear weapon while focusing on the fear of an Islamic bomb. "All Western countries," he was once quoted as saying, "are not only the enemies of Pakistan but in fact of Islam." :mad: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. There's been allegations (in other articles) that he was connected to Al-Queda's nuclear aspirations. From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan[^] ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Those are sadly known facts, but according to the international standards, some countries can be rogue states as long as they have the A-bomb and no outstanding natural resources. Pakistan, a nice example of dictatorship at the fringe to fall in something even more extrem like a theocracy, was/is behind the talibans, and I wouldn't be surprized if the pakistani secret services were behind some terror attacks, as in India as elsewhere in the World. International relations aren't fair, but are following the "rule of the stronger", and I don't expect any improvement for 2004.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
Excuse me for being suspicious. I have had the growing feeling for a long time now that the left is using the fact of Islamic terrorism as a means of attacking Chrisitanity by artificially associating the two as some how equivalent in their ultimate goals. The irony of it all is that the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself, makeing them the closest equivalent in our culture to what is coming out of Islam. (Not to imply they are in any way actually guilty of terrorism) In fact, if you really think about it, this conflict is between the two most absolutist sources of moral authoritarianism in the world today - the human secularism of the left in the west and the Islamic Fundamentalism of the middle east. Christianity, as such, hardly has a role at all. (This is all doubly ironic when you stop to consider that the guy who the left hates the most, GWB, is doing the most to defend it.)
Stan Shannon wrote: the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself Say what???? We have the spectacle of the Bush Administration forcing a moral agenda on the western world (either you're with us or you're against us). Are you trying to tell me that GWB is a leftist? Stan Shannon wrote: the guy who the left hates the most, GWB, is doing the most to defend it Well obviously you're not. So which is it Stan? Is GWB NOT forcing a moral agenda onto western culture? When GWB says that any state that harbours a terrorist is subject to the might of US power isn't that forcing a moral agenda on that state? When Tom Sawyer holds the new kid down and punches his lights out is he demonstrating moral superiority? Or is he merely demonstrating muscles? So are you advocating a Pax Americana at the point of a gun or do you really want an equitable peace. It's time you came out and said what your goals are. Notes to self: Of course Stan will come out with the arguments against a 'Furner' daring to have an opinion on such an important matter as the US's 'divine' right to control the future of humanity. Just point him at the success of the Australian experiment. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
Those are sadly known facts, but according to the international standards, some countries can be rogue states as long as they have the A-bomb and no outstanding natural resources. Pakistan, a nice example of dictatorship at the fringe to fall in something even more extrem like a theocracy, was/is behind the talibans, and I wouldn't be surprized if the pakistani secret services were behind some terror attacks, as in India as elsewhere in the World. International relations aren't fair, but are following the "rule of the stronger", and I don't expect any improvement for 2004.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: the pakistani secret services were behind some terror attacks, as in India as elsewhere in the World. Yes, and there are beds of roses daily gifted by Indian Secret Services to the poor occupied people of various states they claim to be their "integral" part. :mad: Isn't it the form of terrorism what is done by Indian security forces as described by various human rights organizations reports.
-
KaЯl wrote: the pakistani secret services were behind some terror attacks, as in India as elsewhere in the World. Yes, and there are beds of roses daily gifted by Indian Secret Services to the poor occupied people of various states they claim to be their "integral" part. :mad: Isn't it the form of terrorism what is done by Indian security forces as described by various human rights organizations reports.
Even if you're potentially right (my knowledge on this subject is too limited to be more affirmative), I don't see how this could be an apology for the behaviour of ISI, especially with its relationship with Al-qaeda.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
Michael Martin wrote: He was in a part of the world with oil which is what y'all really give a sh*t about. So when do we get the cheaper gas now that we got our oil? :-D ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start