Better nuke Israel before it is too late

[ddd]

Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday October 12, 2003
The Observer

Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
territory again.

According to Israeli and Bush administration officials interviewed by
the Los Angeles Times, the sea-launch capability gives Israel the
ability to target Iran more easily should the Iranians develop their own
nuclear weapons.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html

[tscottme]

ddd > wrote in message
...
> Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
>
> Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
> Sunday October 12, 2003
> The Observer
>
> Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
> only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab
neighbours.
<snip>

Harpoon carries a nuke? I didn't see any mention of it. Sounds like
another ghost story. Setting that aside, I wish the Israelis good
hunting.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Adrian]

"ddd" > wrote in message
...
> Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
>
> Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
> Sunday October 12, 2003
> The Observer
>
> Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
> only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
>
>

I think they meant Popyeye Turbo cruise missiles. Not Harpoon . Popeye could
be around 1500 kilometers, Harpoon is anti shipping. and around 120 km.
They should have written, 'Harpoon equipped submarines with additional
indigenous cruise missiles.
The subs were/are the third leg of Israel's nuclear delivery capability.

ExpatEgghead

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Better nuke Israel before it is too late
>From: ddd
>Date: 10/11/03 10:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

>The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
>'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
>declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
>territory again.

Whistling in the dark Syria is too cowardly to challenge Israel again. That is
why they send in terrorists to do what they are afraid to do.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[robert arndt]

"Adrian" > wrote in message >...
> "ddd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
> >
> > Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
> > Sunday October 12, 2003
> > The Observer
> >
> > Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
> > US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
> > Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
> > only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
> >
> >
>
> I think they meant Popyeye Turbo cruise missiles. Not Harpoon . Popeye could
> be around 1500 kilometers, Harpoon is anti shipping. and around 120 km.
> They should have written, 'Harpoon equipped submarines with additional
> indigenous cruise missiles.
> The subs were/are the third leg of Israel's nuclear delivery capability.
>
> ExpatEgghead

I think you are right. It was the Israeli Popeye Turbo that was
test-fired off South Africa a few years back with German assistance.
The Germans modified the torpedo tubes to be able to fire the cruise
missile. The nuclear sea-capability was already there without the need
for the Harpoon.

Rob

[Merlin Dorfman]

ddd ) wrote:
: Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

: Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
: Sunday October 12, 2003
: The Observer

: Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
: US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
: Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
: only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

: The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
: 'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
: declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
: territory again.

Didn't somebody once say that, in fighting terrorism, we will
make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor
them?

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:11:50 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>ddd > wrote in message
...
>> Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
>>
>> Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
>> Sunday October 12, 2003
>> The Observer
>>
>> Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
>> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
>> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
>> only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab
>neighbours.
><snip>
>
>Harpoon carries a nuke? I didn't see any mention of it. Sounds like
>another ghost story. Setting that aside, I wish the Israelis good
>hunting.
>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

I never heard of a nuke 'poon, I believe that this is just more
anti-US propaganda.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:15:54 +0200, "Adrian" >
wrote:

>
>"ddd" > wrote in message
...
>> Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
>>
>> Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
>> Sunday October 12, 2003
>> The Observer
>>
>> Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
>> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
>> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
>> only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
>>
>>
>
>I think they meant Popyeye Turbo cruise missiles. Not Harpoon . Popeye could
>be around 1500 kilometers, Harpoon is anti shipping. and around 120 km.
>They should have written, 'Harpoon equipped submarines with additional
>indigenous cruise missiles.
>The subs were/are the third leg of Israel's nuclear delivery capability.
>
>ExpatEgghead
>
Either way, the thought of a bunch of religious zealots with nukes
scares the daylights out of me.

Al Minyard

[News]

Yes, but we all forget the Israeli policy and the use of nuclear weapons. It
is called the Sampson Option. It basically says that Israel will only use
Nukes as a last resort and they are backed against the wall and their AF and
Army have lost. With that said a 20 Kt warhead would be able to penetrate a
reactor and destroy the Iranian Nuclear program! Lets just hope it never
comes to that!


"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> ddd ) wrote:
> : Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
>
> : Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
> : Sunday October 12, 2003
> : The Observer
>
> : Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
> : US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
> : Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
> : only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
>
> : The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
> : 'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
> : declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
> : territory again.
>
> Didn't somebody once say that, in fighting terrorism, we will
> make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor
> them?
>

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:15:54 +0200, "Adrian" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"ddd" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
> >>
> >> Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
> >> Sunday October 12, 2003
> >> The Observer
> >>
> >> Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
> >> US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
> >> Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
> >> only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think they meant Popyeye Turbo cruise missiles. Not Harpoon . Popeye could
> >be around 1500 kilometers, Harpoon is anti shipping. and around 120 km.
> >They should have written, 'Harpoon equipped submarines with additional
> >indigenous cruise missiles.
> >The subs were/are the third leg of Israel's nuclear delivery capability.
> >
> >ExpatEgghead
> >
> Either way, the thought of a bunch of religious zealots with nukes
> scares the daylights out of me.
>
> Al Minyard

Are you talking about Israelis or the Bush Administration, Al? If you
are talking about the Israelis you're wrong as usual. Israeli society
is largely secular and their Knesset is always a coalition govt. of
every sort. Your avg Israeli citizen just wants peace with the
Palestinians and in the region. But they aren't stupid enough to
believe Yasser Arafat's lies and ties to Hamas. Once a terrorist,
always a terrorist. So, despite a real yearning for peace most
Israelis must go along with Sharon's military suppression approach
which perpetuates the cycle of violence. Israel is smaller than New
Jersey and giving half of it away to an avowed terrorist with Hamas
connections is akin to national suicide. Sharon is certainly a hawk
but a hawk is needed when there's a snake loose.
Regarding the nuclear sea capability, it was already in place when the
Germans delivered the modified subs. That was years ago and Israel
hasn't fired a shot in anger. So why are you complaining? Russia has
about twice the number of nukes the US has and you don't seem to care
about them. Or how about Iran's religious zealots that are trying to
build one? Or the Communist DPRK that hates the US?
You need to get your priorities straight IMO.

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Oct 2003 09:25:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:15:54 +0200, "Adrian" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"ddd" > wrote in message
>> ...

>> Either way, the thought of a bunch of religious zealots with nukes
>> scares the daylights out of me.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Are you talking about Israelis or the Bush Administration, Al? If you
>are talking about the Israelis you're wrong as usual. Israeli society
>is largely secular and their Knesset is always a coalition govt. of
>every sort. Your avg Israeli citizen just wants peace with the
>Palestinians and in the region. But they aren't stupid enough to
>believe Yasser Arafat's lies and ties to Hamas. Once a terrorist,
>always a terrorist


So Begin et al should be imprisoned? After all, they were once
"terrorists".


>. So, despite a real yearning for peace most
>Israelis must go along with Sharon's military suppression approach
>which perpetuates the cycle of violence. Israel is smaller than New
>Jersey and giving half of it away to an avowed terrorist with Hamas
>connections is akin to national suicide. Sharon is certainly a hawk
>but a hawk is needed when there's a snake loose.
>Regarding the nuclear sea capability, it was already in place when the
>Germans delivered the modified subs. That was years ago and Israel
>hasn't fired a shot in anger. So why are you complaining? Russia has
>about twice the number of nukes the US has and you don't seem to care
>about them. Or how about Iran's religious zealots that are trying to
>build one? Or the Communist DPRK that hates the US?
>You need to get your priorities straight IMO.
>
>Rob

My priorities are just fine, than you.

Israel is a theocracy, anyone that says otherwise is either a fool or
a liar. There is no nuke warhead for the Harpoon, but any thinking
person would refuse to sell it 9if it existed) to *anyone* in the
Middle East.

Al Minyard

[Kenneth Williams]

> My priorities are just fine, than you.
>
> Israel is a theocracy, anyone that says otherwise is either a fool or
> a liar. There is no nuke warhead for the Harpoon, but any thinking
> person would refuse to sell it 9if it existed) to *anyone* in the
> Middle East.
>
> Al Minyard

Mr. Minyard,

Do you hate Jews or what?

The reason I ask is that I've been to Israel many times in my life and
do not get the impression that you have that they are a bunch of
religious fanatics bent on world destruction.

Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
regimes with oppressive Islamic laws. I would be more worried if
Israel's neighbors got the bomb than Israel possessing a few hundred.

Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
the enemies of peace.

Thank God President Bush is for Israel.

I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.
Israel is proud of their IDF because most citizens have served in it
for most of their lives. Israel is free largely due to the IDF and the
security of the bomb.

The US and Former Soviet Union never went to war due to MAD, but that
strategy doesn't work in the Middle East. Had Saddam had a bomb he
would have used it against Israel in 1991 even if it meant the
annihilation of Iraq. Such is the hatred of the Jews in the region.

Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
bomb.

Kenneth Williams

[Rob van Riel]

I'm sure Al will have something to say on this as well, but this sort
of post ****es me off, so I'm going to but in anyway.

(Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> Do you hate Jews or what?

No, but I've got a serious problem with this knee-jerk response. It is
quite possible to have no particular feelings for the jews, and still
despise Israel. It has all the aspects of a racist and fascist state
(while of all nations in the world, it should know better than to do
that). With its current "guilty of terrorism by the broadest possible
association" policy, and resultant deliberate targetting of civilians,
it has also become a terrorist organisation.


> Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
> regimes with oppressive Islamic laws.

Only to confirmed jews and assumed sympathisers. Not much freedom
there if you belong to the wrong ethnic group.
Not that I'm not even implying the neighbouring nations are nice guys.


> Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
> that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
> neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
agression for all eternity.


> I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
> the enemies of peace.

Peace has many enemies in the middle east, and Israel is formost among
them. It is you who sides with the enemies of peace.


> Thank God President Bush is for Israel.

If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
is pretty far down the list.


> I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
> what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
> street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.

They (at least those represented by the actions of the current
government) want peace through the annihilation of the Palestinian
people, and any other group that stands against them, in a country
twice the size originally allocated to them. Sounds like a repeat
performance of Hitler and his cronies.
I can only hope that Israel, like Germany, will eventually come to its
senses.


> Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
> bomb.

Nobody is justified in using such a doomsday weapon, whether that use
is military or political. If Israel isn't a theocracy, than why do
jews (not Israelis) have such priviliges in Israel?

Rob

[robert arndt]

(Rob van Riel) wrote in message >...
> I'm sure Al will have something to say on this as well, but this sort
> of post ****es me off, so I'm going to but in anyway.

And your post ****es me off, so I'll butt in as well (I'm sure Al will
have some lame response himself).
>
> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> > Do you hate Jews or what?
>
> No, but I've got a serious problem with this knee-jerk response. It is
> quite possible to have no particular feelings for the jews, and still
> despise Israel. It has all the aspects of a racist and fascist state
> (while of all nations in the world, it should know better than to do
> that). With its current "guilty of terrorism by the broadest possible
> association" policy, and resultant deliberate targetting of civilians,
> it has also become a terrorist organisation.

How do you figure that since Israel treats its Arabs/Palestinians
better than any of the oil-rich regimes in the region, which
ironically promote a Palestinian state but refuse to take any
Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
"death to Israel".
>
>
> > Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
> > regimes with oppressive Islamic laws.
>
> Only to confirmed jews and assumed sympathisers. Not much freedom
> there if you belong to the wrong ethnic group.
> Not that I'm not even implying the neighbouring nations are nice guys.

Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
and those that support terror? Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations... BAM!!!...
another suicide bombing (which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
Arafat himself and his terror connections). And how can Israel
negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?
The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation and if that
means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
bad.
>
>
> > Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
> > that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
> > neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.
>
> The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
> to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
> has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
> created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
> seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
> last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
> agression for all eternity.
>
> Now you've really gone overboard. It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, raped China and used bio-weapons on them, killed Allied soldiers on death marches, and did human medical experiments on helpless civilians with Unit 731.
Their determined kamikaze attacks and fanatical devotion to the
Emperor made it imperative that we use the atomic bombs to end the war
with the least casualties for both the US and Japanese. A homeland
invasion would have taken years and the casualties on both sides
probably in the millions. As far as Israel goes that nation has
between 200-400 nuclear weapons estimated (low-to-high) and has never
used them despite Saddams 1991 provocation with the Scuds and the all
too real threat that one of those warheads might have been chemical.
If you remember 1990 then you will recall Saddam threatening to burn
Israel utterly, so when the Scuds went flying Israel had to use
restraint not knowing what was in the warheads. Israel could have
destroyed Baghdad or for that matter Damascus, Tehran, or Riyadh.
Israel has no such intention, just a safeguard in the event of a war
that enters Israeli territory with no hope of winning. An Arab bomb on
the other hand has only one target and purpose- Israel, to kill the
Jews.

> > I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
> > the enemies of peace.
>
> Peace has many enemies in the middle east, and Israel is formost among
> them. It is you who sides with the enemies of peace.

Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
and the West for decades. Israel has stood strong and retaliated. In
extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull). Had they not
then Iraq would have had a bomb by 1991 and a Supergun to fire it
against Israel or coalition troops. Israel is not the aggressor here
but they refuse to be helpless victims of terror. That's why the US
supports Israel.
>
>
> > Thank God President Bush is for Israel.
>
> If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
> is pretty far down the list.

Your atheistic anti-semitism is showing.
>
>
> > I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
> > what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
> > street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.
>
> They (at least those represented by the actions of the current
> government) want peace through the annihilation of the Palestinian
> people, and any other group that stands against them, in a country
> twice the size originally allocated to them. Sounds like a repeat
> performance of Hitler and his cronies.
> I can only hope that Israel, like Germany, will eventually come to its
> senses.
>
> Hey, the Palestinians had their chance for a state in 1948 and they
rejected the proposal, choosing instead to try to push the Jews into
the sea in war. They failed. And then they tried 4 more times to do it
militarily and failed 4 more times. Now, its the "plight of the poor
Palestinians" nonsense. And let me tell you that Yasser Arafat won't
be content with the '67 borders- he wants Israel ultimately destroyed
and all the land. Same old goal, different strategy.

> > Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
> > bomb.
>
> Nobody is justified in using such a doomsday weapon, whether that use
> is military or political. If Israel isn't a theocracy, than why do
> jews (not Israelis) have such priviliges in Israel?

The US was justified when we had the bomb. Had Germany or Japan built
one they would have used it against us and we were at war. Germany
failed to build one due to impure graphite that led the German
scientists down the wrong road. However, Germany had two radiological
weapons under construction in 1945 that would have been equally
disturbing if used. Fortunately they were discovered by the Allies and
dismantled. Japan, OTOH, was recieving Uranium from Germany and did
have a program to build a bomb at a location in occupied Korea. It is
still not clear how far they progressed but had they made a bomb they
would have used it against any US invasion force. Israel has been at
war 6 times since 1948 and has never used its bombs. The Israeli
nuclear deterrent keeps Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in line.
As an Israeli saying goes "The Arabs have the oil, but we have the
matches". As long as the Arabs leave Israel alone, then they have
nothing to fear.
As far as an Israeli theocracy go, that is nonsense. It is true that
Israel allows aliya from any nation where Jews want to leave (Russia,
Argentina, Ethiopia, etc...) but that does not in any way interfere
with the priviliges that Arab Israelis get, which is greater than in
any Arab nation. The second Intifada, however, has had grave
consequences for the Palestinian people whose leader Yasser Arafat has
put in peril by his unwillingness to truly seek peace and negotiate
for an end to the conflict. It is Yasser himself that condemns the
Palestinians to be unemployed, impoverished, and in harms way... yet
he has no remorse in using his own people for his own selfish
purposes. Any leader that commands his people to sacrifice their
children in order to kill a Jew is a murderer at heart and doesnt
deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> Rob

Rob A

[Jim Yanik]

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:


> Nobody is justified in using such a doomsday weapon, whether that use
> is military or political.
> Rob
>

The US -did- use TWO nuclear weapons;on Japan.I believe that use was
justified.

It is not necessarily a 'doomsday' weapon,either.No more than bio or
chemical WMD.

IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
weapon,as the bugs or virii could potentially mutate past any vaccine or
antibiotic protection,and could self-sustain themselves,spreading well past
the target area,perhaps 'round the world'.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Oct 2003 23:43:55 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

>> My priorities are just fine, than you.
>>
>> Israel is a theocracy, anyone that says otherwise is either a fool or
>> a liar. There is no nuke warhead for the Harpoon, but any thinking
>> person would refuse to sell it 9if it existed) to *anyone* in the
>> Middle East.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Mr. Minyard,
>
>Do you hate Jews or what?

I do not "hate" any particular group of people. I do recognize that,
as a group, theocracies tend to perpetuate evil, be they Moslem, Jew,
or any other religion.
>
>The reason I ask is that I've been to Israel many times in my life and
>do not get the impression that you have that they are a bunch of
>religious fanatics bent on world destruction.
>
I too have been to Israel, and actions speak louder than words when it
comes to international relations.

>Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
>regimes with oppressive Islamic laws. I would be more worried if
>Israel's neighbors got the bomb than Israel possessing a few hundred.

Either worries me, equally.
>
>Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
>that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
>neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.
>
So you say, but a country that routinely bulldozes home in a fit of
mass punishment should not have nukes.

>I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
>the enemies of peace.

All of the countries in the region are enemies of peace.
>
>Thank God President Bush is for Israel.
>
>I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
>what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
>street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.
>Israel is proud of their IDF because most citizens have served in it
>for most of their lives. Israel is free largely due to the IDF and the
>security of the bomb.

They want the elimination of the Palestinians, who want the
elimination of Israel, it is a no-win situation.
>
>The US and Former Soviet Union never went to war due to MAD, but that
>strategy doesn't work in the Middle East. Had Saddam had a bomb he
>would have used it against Israel in 1991 even if it meant the
>annihilation of Iraq. Such is the hatred of the Jews in the region.
>
>Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
>bomb.
>
>Kenneth Williams

Israel is most definitely a theocracy, one only needs to look at the
role that Rabbis play in the government to see this.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Oct 2003 08:52:39 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>
>How do you figure that since Israel treats its Arabs/Palestinians
>better than any of the oil-rich regimes in the region, which
>ironically promote a Palestinian state but refuse to take any
>Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
>civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
>from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
>"death to Israel".
>>
>>
So expressing a hatred for Israel warrants a death sentence? Does not
sound very democratic to me.

>> > Israel is a pretty small island of freedom in a vast region of brutal
>> > regimes with oppressive Islamic laws.

Islamic law is no more repressive than Jewish law.
>>
>> Only to confirmed jews and assumed sympathisers. Not much freedom
>> there if you belong to the wrong ethnic group.
>> Not that I'm not even implying the neighbouring nations are nice guys.
>
>Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
>backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
>and those that support terror? Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
>and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations... BAM!!!...
>another suicide bombing (which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
>Arafat himself and his terror connections). And how can Israel
>negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
>pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?
>The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation and if that
>means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
>bad.
>
No, Israel is bent on the destruction of the Palestinians, just as the
Palestinians are bent of the destruction of Israel. Two wrongs do not
make right.
>
>>
>> > Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
>> > that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
>> > neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.
>>
And you know this how??

>> The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
>> to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
>> has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
>> created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
>> seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
>> last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
>> agression for all eternity.
>>
>> Now you've really gone overboard. It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, raped China and used bio-weapons on them, killed Allied soldiers on death marches, and did human medical experiments on helpless civilians with Unit 731.
>Their determined kamikaze attacks and fanatical devotion to the
>Emperor made it imperative that we use the atomic bombs to end the war
>with the least casualties for both the US and Japanese. A homeland
>invasion would have taken years and the casualties on both sides
>probably in the millions. As far as Israel goes that nation has
>between 200-400 nuclear weapons estimated (low-to-high) and has never
>used them despite Saddams 1991 provocation with the Scuds and the all
>too real threat that one of those warheads might have been chemical.
>If you remember 1990 then you will recall Saddam threatening to burn
>Israel utterly, so when the Scuds went flying Israel had to use
>restraint not knowing what was in the warheads. Israel could have
>destroyed Baghdad or for that matter Damascus, Tehran, or Riyadh.
>Israel has no such intention, just a safeguard in the event of a war
>that enters Israeli territory with no hope of winning. An Arab bomb on
>the other hand has only one target and purpose- Israel, to kill the
>Jews.
>
>> > I can't believe you would not be against this. You seem to side with
>> > the enemies of peace.
>>
>> Peace has many enemies in the middle east, and Israel is formost among
>> them. It is you who sides with the enemies of peace.
>
>Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
>Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
>and the West for decades. Israel has stood strong and retaliated. In
>extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
>good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull). Had they not
>then Iraq would have had a bomb by 1991 and a Supergun to fire it
>against Israel or coalition troops. Israel is not the aggressor here
>but they refuse to be helpless victims of terror. That's why the US
>supports Israel.
>>
>>
>> > Thank God President Bush is for Israel.
>>
>> If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
>> is pretty far down the list.
>
>Your atheistic anti-semitism is showing.
>>
>>
>> > I think you should take a trip to Israel yourself Mr. Minyard and see
>> > what life is like. Talk to an average Israeli family or person in the
>> > street. They don't want war, they want peace. But not at any cost.
>>
>> They (at least those represented by the actions of the current
>> government) want peace through the annihilation of the Palestinian
>> people, and any other group that stands against them, in a country
>> twice the size originally allocated to them. Sounds like a repeat
>> performance of Hitler and his cronies.
>> I can only hope that Israel, like Germany, will eventually come to its
>> senses.
>>
>> Hey, the Palestinians had their chance for a state in 1948 and they
>rejected the proposal, choosing instead to try to push the Jews into
>the sea in war. They failed. And then they tried 4 more times to do it
>militarily and failed 4 more times. Now, its the "plight of the poor
>Palestinians" nonsense. And let me tell you that Yasser Arafat won't
>be content with the '67 borders- he wants Israel ultimately destroyed
>and all the land. Same old goal, different strategy.
>
>> > Israel isn't a theocracy but they are justified morally in having the
>> > bomb.
>>
>> Nobody is justified in using such a doomsday weapon, whether that use
>> is military or political. If Israel isn't a theocracy, than why do
>> jews (not Israelis) have such priviliges in Israel?
>
>The US was justified when we had the bomb. Had Germany or Japan built
>one they would have used it against us and we were at war. Germany
>failed to build one due to impure graphite that led the German
>scientists down the wrong road. However, Germany had two radiological
>weapons under construction in 1945 that would have been equally
>disturbing if used. Fortunately they were discovered by the Allies and
>dismantled. Japan, OTOH, was recieving Uranium from Germany and did
>have a program to build a bomb at a location in occupied Korea. It is
>still not clear how far they progressed but had they made a bomb they
>would have used it against any US invasion force. Israel has been at
>war 6 times since 1948 and has never used its bombs. The Israeli
>nuclear deterrent keeps Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in line.
>As an Israeli saying goes "The Arabs have the oil, but we have the
>matches". As long as the Arabs leave Israel alone, then they have
>nothing to fear.
>As far as an Israeli theocracy go, that is nonsense. It is true that
>Israel allows aliya from any nation where Jews want to leave (Russia,
>Argentina, Ethiopia, etc...) but that does not in any way interfere
>with the priviliges that Arab Israelis get, which is greater than in
>any Arab nation. The second Intifada, however, has had grave
>consequences for the Palestinian people whose leader Yasser Arafat has
>put in peril by his unwillingness to truly seek peace and negotiate
>for an end to the conflict. It is Yasser himself that condemns the
>Palestinians to be unemployed, impoverished, and in harms way... yet
>he has no remorse in using his own people for his own selfish
>purposes. Any leader that commands his people to sacrifice their
>children in order to kill a Jew is a murderer at heart and doesnt
>deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
>>
>> Rob
>
>Rob A

Germany never came close to a bomb, they never even sustained a
reaction. Mr. Arafat is in collusion with terrorists, just as the
Israeli Premier is, they are both evil.

Al Minyard

[BackToNormal]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message

> > Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in the event
> > that the nation was about to fall- as a last resort. But Israel's
> > neighbors only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.
>
> The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
> to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
> has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
> created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
> seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
> last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
> agression for all eternity.
>
Aw c'mon. How about actually addressing the points he made here.
Frinstance

> > Israel would only use nuclear weapons to protect itself in
> > the event that the nation was about to fall- as a last
> > resort.

If you do not agree with that statement, or do agreee with it, then say
so. Don't waffle on with irrelevancy about the US flattening Japan

And,

> > But Israel's neighbors
> > only want to build a bomb to be used against Israel.

If you do not agree with that statement, or do agreee with it, then say
so. Don't weasel out with "the alternative blah blah blah". Is there not
enough evidence for you that some Arabs have stated the intention of
eliminating Israel?

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
>weapon,as the bugs or virii

You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
or Latin.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On 14 Oct 2003 08:52:39 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
>
>How do you figure that since Israel treats its Arabs/Palestinians
>better than any of the oil-rich regimes in the region,

Y'know I really do find it amusing some of the idiotic crap that
appologists for Israel's policies come up with. If the best thing
you can say about Israel's human rights record is that it's better
than countries like Saudi Arabia, that speaks for itself.

BTW, I'm a very non-violent person, I've killed less people than
Jack the Ripper.

> which
>ironically promote a Palestinian state but refuse to take any
>Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
>civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
>from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
>"death to Israel".

Evidently you are against freedom of speech.

>> Only to confirmed jews and assumed sympathisers. Not much freedom
>> there if you belong to the wrong ethnic group.
>> Not that I'm not even implying the neighbouring nations are nice guys.
>
>Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
>backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
>and those that support terror?

Ha ha ha. So when Israelis and Palestinians sign an accord in
Geneva, The Israeli Government's only response is to rubbish the
proposals, and repeat their old line that there are no Palestinians
to negotiate with and that Israel should continue to create "facts
on the ground" by building more settlements in its campaign to gain
_Lebensraum_ by stealing Arab land. And then they are surprised when
the palestinians fight back.

>Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
>and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations...

The current Israeli govmt isn't interested in negotiations.

>BAM!!!...
>another suicide bombing

Welcomed by Sharon as it increases his electoral support and gives
him a pretext to kill and oppress Palestinians, continue to build
settlements, etc.

>(which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
>Arafat himself and his terror connections).

As if you'd know.

>And how can Israel
>negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
>pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?

A reasonable solution would be:

1. Israel to withdraw to pre 1967 war borders; or possibly an agreed
border that exchanges land on one side for land on the other

2. Palestinians to give up right of return

3. Palestinian state to be disarmed, its security (both against
Palestinian group like Hamas, and Israeli invasion) guaranteed by
foreign soldiers and police

4. Palestinians to get economic support from EU; part of support is
withdrawn whenever Palestinian groups attack Israel

5. Israel to continue to get economic support from USA; part of
support is withdrawn whenever Israeli groups attack Palestine

(The point of these last two provisions is to discourage both
societies from aggressive action).

6. both Israel and Palestine offered eventual membership of the EU,
if they want it and fulfil human rights conditions for membership

>The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation

Yes they do. They don't have a right to annex terrotiy occupied in
war.

> and if that
>means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
>bad.

I'm sure it is to you, but then for racists like you, Arabs are
only _Untermensch_ who deserve to be killed.

>
>Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
>Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
>and the West for decades. Israel has stood strong and retaliated. In
>extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
>good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull).

So when Muslims kill people, that's bad, but when Israel does the
same things that's good, eh? You confirm that you are a racist
scumbag. Frankly, this world would be a better place if people like
you didn't exist.

>Had they not
>then Iraq would have had a bomb by 1991 and a Supergun to fire it
>against Israel or coalition troops. Israel is not the aggressor here

So occupying Palestine and parts of Syria isn't aggression? I
suppose in your mind the Israelis can do no wrong.

>but they refuse to be helpless victims of terror. That's why the US
>supports Israel.

Ha ha ha. No, idiot, its because of internal US politics -- it's
pandering to the fundamentalist Christian voter and the Jewish
vote.

>As far as an Israeli theocracy go, that is nonsense. It is true that
>Israel allows aliya from any nation where Jews want to leave (Russia,
>Argentina, Ethiopia, etc...) but that does not in any way interfere
>with the priviliges that Arab Israelis get,

Which don't include living where they want to. There is much
racist sentiment in Israel; is that why you like the place so much?

>which is greater than in
>any Arab nation. The second Intifada, however, has had grave
>consequences for the Palestinian people whose leader Yasser Arafat has
>put in peril by his unwillingness to truly seek peace and negotiate
>for an end to the conflict.

No disagreement from me there -- Arafat is basically a waste of
space. Perhaps him and Sharon should be locked in the same prison
cell.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik > wrote:
> >
> >IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
> >weapon,as the bugs or virii
>
> You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
> or Latin.

There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
for more than a few years, it's a word.

It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.

Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik > wrote:
>> >
>> >IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
>> >weapon,as the bugs or virii
>>
>> You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
>> or Latin.
>
>There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use

Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.

>for more than a few years, it's a word.
>
>It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.
>
>Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.

There is nothing ill-formed about any of these words.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Rob van Riel]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> (Rob van Riel) wrote in message >...
> > that). With its current "guilty of terrorism by the broadest possible
> > association" policy, and resultant deliberate targetting of civilians,
> > it has also become a terrorist organisation.
> Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
> civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
> from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
> "death to Israel".

If anyone picks up a weapon and points it at any soldier, Israeli or
otherwise, that person has no ground for complaints if he or she gets
wasted. I don't think chanting anything is supposed to be a capital
offence. Hosting terrorists needs more proof than the Israeli
govenment's say so.
Levelling a block of flats because there might have been a terrorist
living there is targetting civilians, no matter how you look at it.


> Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
> backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
> and those that support terror?

You mean they don't consider every Palestinian who lives in the
occupied territories a terrorist until proven otherwise? Well, they
sure could have fooled me.


> Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
> and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations... BAM!!!...
> another suicide bombing (which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
> Arafat himself and his terror connections).

I must admit that this is one of the problems when fighting
terrorists, its hard to restrict their activities without imposing a
brutal police state on the general population. Israel goes a lot
further in this than most civilised countries would find acceptable,
and still they are ineffective, probably because their actions make
new bombers faster than they eliminate them.


> And how can Israel
> negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
> pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?

How can one negotiate with any nation one is at war with? And yet,
other than very rare total victories, this is how wars are ended.


> The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation and if that
> means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
> bad.

Would that Apache also fire is this Hamas leader were hiding amongst
those praying at the wailing wall? I don't think so. To Israel,
Palestinian death and suffering are irrelevant, maybe even part of the
agenda.


> > The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
> > to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
> > has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
> > created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
> > seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
> > last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
> > agression for all eternity.
> >
> >
> Now you've really gone overboard. It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor,
> raped China and used bio-weapons on them, killed Allied soldiers on death
> marches, and did human medical experiments on helpless civilians with Unit
> 731.
> Their determined kamikaze attacks and fanatical devotion to the
> Emperor made it imperative that we use the atomic bombs to end the war
> with the least casualties for both the US and Japanese. A homeland
> invasion would have taken years and the casualties on both sides
> probably in the millions.

True, the Japanese did some seriously horrible stuff, and were totally
determined to fight to the death. Defeating them without the use of
nuclear weapons would have been very costly. This merely proves my
point. To the Arabs, Isreal is as heinious an enemy as the Japanese
were in your opinion, and no conventional method for their removal
seems feasable. So, nuke 'em.


> As far as Israel goes that nation has
> between 200-400 nuclear weapons estimated (low-to-high) and has never
> used them despite Saddams 1991 provocation with the Scuds and the all
> too real threat that one of those warheads might have been chemical.
> If you remember 1990 then you will recall Saddam threatening to burn
> Israel utterly, so when the Scuds went flying Israel had to use
> restraint not knowing what was in the warheads. Israel could have
> destroyed Baghdad or for that matter Damascus, Tehran, or Riyadh.
> Israel has no such intention, just a safeguard in the event of a war
> that enters Israeli territory with no hope of winning. An Arab bomb on
> the other hand has only one target and purpose- Israel, to kill the
> Jews.

So, an Israeli bomb is there to get the Arabs out, at any cost,
whereas an Arab bomb would be there to get the Israelis out, at any
cost. Much the same thing.


> Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
> Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
> and the West for decades.

Israel started out with terrorism against Palestinians and Western
nations. No difference.

> extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
> good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull).

There has never been a terrorist without some sort of justification.


> > > Thank God President Bush is for Israel.
> >
> > If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
> > is pretty far down the list.
>
> Your atheistic anti-semitism is showing.

Agnostic, actually, but with sufficiently strong atheistic tendencies
to accept that. Can't find the anti-semitism though. Or is Bush a jew,
and are you insulted by the fact that I don't consider him all that
relevant?


> > Hey, the Palestinians had their chance for a state in 1948 and they
> rejected the proposal, choosing instead to try to push the Jews into
> the sea in war. They failed. And then they tried 4 more times to do it
> militarily and failed 4 more times.

I never contested the military might of the IDF.


> Now, its the "plight of the poor
> Palestinians" nonsense. And let me tell you that Yasser Arafat won't
> be content with the '67 borders- he wants Israel ultimately destroyed
> and all the land. Same old goal, different strategy.

You're obviously better at reading minds than I am. I don't believe
the Palestinian hardliners would be truly content with the '67
borders, but I think they would, grudgingly, accept them if this was
the price to pay for reaching their other goals. Of course, the
Israelis wouldn't be content with those borders either, they want
every scrap of land they now occupy.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (Rob van Riel) wrote in
> om:
> The US -did- use TWO nuclear weapons;on Japan.I believe that use was
> justified.

I wish I had your certainty on this. Horrible though their use was, I
know that in the long run, it probably saved lives. I even think that,
at the time, it was the correct decision. At the same time, I firmly
believe the nuclear genie should never have been let out of the
bottle. The world needs a better answer, and I deeply regret that in
1945 no better answer was deemed to be available.


> It is not necessarily a 'doomsday' weapon,either.No more than bio or
> chemical WMD.

Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much. Bio is probably more
dangerous, chemical is probably the lesser of these evils.


> IMO,bioweapons have the greatest possibility of being a 'doomsday'
> weapon,as the bugs or virii could potentially mutate past any vaccine or
> antibiotic protection,and could self-sustain themselves,spreading well past
> the target area,perhaps 'round the world'.

Bio weapons are indeed dangerously unpredictably. They literally have
a life of their own, and do not care about any human agenda.

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> >> You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
> >> or Latin.
> >
> >There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
> >for more than a few years, it's a word.
>
> Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.

Or who don't care about silly rules that are only followed by Latin
students with nothing better to do.

English word construction rules? You must be kidding...

> >It may not be a technically *correct* word, but it's a word nonetheless.
> >
> >Like bioweapon, nuke, Internet, laser, or many other fun words.
>
> There is nothing ill-formed about any of these words.

When people started using acronyms, the response by grammarians and
other linguists was very similar to the way you're complaining about
"virii." You're just used to the idea.

"Computer" used to mean "a person who does computations." When people
began using it for machines, there was a certain amount of revulsion
among the less-flexible.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:59 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:30:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> (phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>> >> You mean "viruses". There is no such word "virii" in either English
>> >> or Latin.
>> >
>> >There is *now*. Since the word "virii" has been in common enough use
>> >for more than a few years, it's a word.
>>
>> Only by those who are deliberately foolish and ignorant.
>
>Or who don't care about silly rules that are only followed by Latin
>students with nothing better to do.
>
>English word construction rules? You must be kidding...

Of course there are. If such things didn't exist, there'd be no such
words as "construction" or "kidding".


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:59 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >English word construction rules? You must be kidding...
>
> Of course there are.

And they add up over time. That's why you get words like "virii."
Created by someone who wanted to differentiate computer viruses from
biological ones.

For similar issues, consider the new word "signage." Which means
"signs."

Of the tendency to tie words together through bicapitalization.

Acronyms? Fairly recent, overall. Broke that rule when someone did it
the first time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Marc Reeve]

Rob van Riel > wrote:


> Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
> The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
> today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much.

Have to pick this nit:

The two bombs were Fat Man (plutonium implosion) and Little Boy (U-235
gun design). The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Rob van Riel]

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message >...
> Rob van Riel > wrote:
>
>
> > Not necessarily, but use on any scale has far reaching consequences.
> > The Tall Boy and Fat Man were firecrackers compared to what's around
> > today. I overstated the case a bit, but not much.
>
> Have to pick this nit:
>
> The two bombs were Fat Man (plutonium implosion) and Little Boy (U-235
> gun design). The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
> which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.
>
> -Marc

You are correct, I'm always mixing these boys up.

Rob

[Seraphim]

(Marc Reeve) wrote in news:1g2w7u2.imqxk41kal68sN%
:

> The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
> which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.

Just FYI, it was actually a 6 ton (12,000 lb) bomb.

[Marc Reeve]

Seraphim > wrote:

> (Marc Reeve) wrote in news:1g2w7u2.imqxk41kal68sN%
> :
>
> > The 'Tallboy' was one of Barnes Wallis' deep-penetrators
> > which, I vaguely recall, weighed 5 tons.
>
> Just FYI, it was actually a 6 ton (12,000 lb) bomb.

Thanks. It's been a good 15 years since I last read _The Dam Busters_,
hence the vague recall. At least I was in the ballpark.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m