There is one point you didn't mention, maybe overlooked, because I didn't make my point very well.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: Nukes are a possibility, though unlikely. Especially given the delicate nature of construction, and the sheer size of the weapons. Chemical is a little better, but difficult to work with. Biological is neat. All we need is another Polio breakout. But again, tough to work with. I would like to make one thing clear; As long as the terrorists are happy to keep it at "conventional" weapons, they don't pose that great a threat. I've heard the bluster about "1 american life is too many." Bravado and machisimo aside, the terrorists KNOW that they are not a big threat, and therefore somewhat secure in being below radar. Let's get hypothetical. Someone drops a low-medium yeild thermo nuke on downtown New York. Show of hands in thinking that the US wouldn't steamroll the entire mid-east? Show of hands who believe that they would act alone in this? there is a certain arrogance to the other countries; As long as it's conventional, it's not a huge threat. But when the bar rises, there will be hell to pay. And I know for sure who has the larger weapons cache. We need to head this off BEFORE it happens. And launching pre-emptive strikes won't do anything but make it worse.

OK, IMHO, nukes are not a possibility, but a certainty. To think that someplace like N Korea won't develop them, or that the former USSR has enough control to EVER let them "leak" out, is simply not possible to me. You seem to indicate that you're thinking that they won't be used (unless there's some kind of global nuclear war) unless terrorists get hold of one, and that's kind of unlikely. I also think that individual terror groups getting one is pretty unlikely, but not impossible.

Such is not the case for smaller nations that have ambitions or scores to settle.

I'm really not that concerned with the US, or Israel, or France, or GB, or China, or even N Korea using them just to gain territory or settle old scores.

I think that in the case of Israel and N Korea, there is a good chance that they might use them, at least at a tactical level, if they genuinely believe their immediate survival is in question. But that doesn't really concern me that much because by that point, it's going to be especially ugly anyway.

But let's go a little further. How about Pakistan and India? They both have battlefield sized tactical nukes. What do you think the global response would be if one side or the other started pitching a couple of them around? My guess..Nothing happens. They irradiate themselves and whoever began it will be ostracized in the rest of the world community. That's the ONLY reason they haven't been used yet, both nations rely on the good will of the world to even exist.

Now, how about Iran? Hmmmmm.... Think that one through for awhile. The only saving grace there, and I think you might have mentioned it in passing, is that the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran is not particularly overtly violent. That is, to their neighbors. So far.

Or even take your thinking further, how about a couple of African nations that have been warring. Don't take this wrong, but in a global view, a couple of warlords on opposite sides of the border really don't affect the global economy or political structure one way or the other. Want to know why the world let so many die in Rawanda? There you go. What if one of them, by some method, gets hold of enough material to build a couple of small yield nukes? And then uses them?

No, I think the use of at least battlefield scale tactical nukes in the next 30 years or so is almost a certainty. Who uses them and on whom will be the determining factor as to "what comes next".

And depending on the outcome, it may take the Anthropologists to figure out what all went on in about another 200 years or so.

John Stricker

What is iggerant?
Oh, I see... must be a typo

Kinda like when I posted Constantinople instead of Constantine.

When I reference a historical action it's considered "slinging history to try and make myself seem less iggerant"
When you make a reference to something historical on the other hand, it is a fact, and your credentials are beyond reproach.
you might have a future in Academia with that kind of snobbery.

At least 27 people were murdred and 400 injured in the attack in Istanbul.
Muslim's have claimed responsibility, but I am sure that it isn't indicative of their belief system.
Probably just a couple of them crazy Arab kids that forgot to take their Ritalin.

Mach I'm with you, your arguements finally won me over. I found out that the Jews are using the blood of Christians in their passover meal!
We all have our breaking point and I found mine.
Watch the video,
highly entertaining..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35712

gone for the weekend, have fun..

[This message has been edited by trailboss (edited 11-21-2003).]

the origial line was ""Constantinople claimed to be a Christian, however he trusted in works also.
Jesus said that "by their fruits you shall know them"
None of the above passes the smell test.""

Constantine the roman ruler who legalized the christian religion DIDNOT BELIVE IN WORKS
in fact he only converted to the church HIMSELF on his death bed, as he thought many of his works were evil BUT nessary as a ruler of an empire and fealt that he could not effectively rule if he was a christian
I allways liked his idea of living a full life and only worrying about the religious BS when death is certan and soon to come

so just get it right when you try to sling history , some of us KNOW BETTER

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

An excellent book on the life of Constantine
titled "Constantine the great" by Michael Grant refutes what you say.

Matthew 7:17
states that a rotten tree bears rotten fruit.
Constantine bore rotten fruit.
I'll admit that he was sympathetic to Christians, however he didn't manifest christlikeness in his life.

"Constantine could hardly be considered much of a Christian. As an example, he never relinguished his title Pontifex Maximus. This was the title given to him as the head of the state pagan cult, which was either Mithraism or Sol Invictus, two distinct but similar religions. In addition, the coinage of his reign continued to depict the Sun God [Sol Invictus]. Finally, it is reported that he personally murdured one of his own sons, had his second wife drowned, had his nephew and brother-in-law killed after he had guaranteed safe passage, etc. However, during all of this he sponsored Christianity because it had been useful to him in winnig a decisive battle."
[The Christian Conspiracy, p. 58, Dr. L.D. Moore]

Back to the topic at hand..

Seriously, are you absolutely SURE the doctor's didn't just remove your gall bladder? Is your brain trickling out of your ears?

I never suggested Jesus told people to do evil. Are you daft? You just don't like even considering that yes, people have smeared all kinds of crap on the name of Christianity. Do I have to name them again?

What I said, was that there were people who BELIEVED they were acting in the right as laid out in the bible, and that they did truly brain****ed and evil things. That did NOT make them right. But neither did their actions exclude them from being CHRISTIAN. They just didn't act like ones.

The decision to oust them from Christianity is not yours, no matter how you would like it to be.

Liberal Lie, huh? You conceited jackass. I hate to break it to you, Jesus was a liberal. He was a lower-class carpenter, he associated with all sorts of people, he didn't regularly go to church, and he cared about everyone. And as far as I can tell, he didn't walk around with his head inverted into his ass hole.

You don't get it do you? I never said that their particular belief system wasn't responsible for their actions. They believe whatever the hell they want. They can justify it all they like with obscure and abridged quotes from their qu'ran.

What I *DID* say was that their particular brand of Islam is a perversion of the DOMINANT form of islam that is followed by the other what, 1,599,999,000 muslims in the world. Whatever the hell Al-Qeida beleives, they are not even close to a fraction of a majority. In a 200-seat house of commons, they are a single angry protestor 10 miles away grumbling into a beer at some sleazy bar.

In fact, on the scale we are talking about, you might as well lump all north-irelanders as terrorists, too. The proportions are roughly the same.

I'd like to make this clear: You are extending a broad generalization of their belief system based on the actions of extremists.

If you can do that, then I have every right to say that a) David Koresh was a true spiritual leader, b) The Salem witch trials were justifiable under God, with no need for proof, and c) Maybe Hitler was right. The bible told him to. And given that, smearing the entirety of Christian faith as being a bunch of suicidal misoganistic xenophobes.

REGARDLESS OF HOW WRONG THE STATEMENTS ARE, It is EXACTLY the same kind of disinformation. The only difference is that you have Dennis furiously masturbating his bible and spurting scripture. We don't have anyone here doing the same for the Qu'ran. And we've established that merely being a doctorate in religious studies and quoting islamic scripture is not enough to derail your minds.

But anyway, why not stop with the racist generalizations, and specify a little? How about "Muslim Extremists suck big camel-balls?"

At least you'd be a little more specific. Hell, for all I know, accurately labeling them. At least, without looking like you have no real idea of what the hell you are talking about.

*btw* I can't open the link. My home-computer is beyond hosed... I'll check it out while at work.

Dennis: Here's some homework: Can you list at least 20 sub-sects of Islam, their particular political stance, and what they have to say about violence in general?

If you can, and can post (with references) them, maybe you'll have a case. Hell, I have no problem doing the same with Judaio-Christianity. And I can turn up more than a few bad-apples.

With that said, Yes people did do things in the name of Christ, but they obviously weren't following Christ. They can claim to be whatever they want though actions speak louder than words. As for Islam the 9/11 terrorist were doing EXACTLY what mohammed told them to. See the difference. Jesus didn't say anything that would allow the holocaust, the kkk, or the crusades. Mohammed did say things that would allow 9/11, the USS Cole, and palestinian suicide bombing.

More interesting information... http://www.chuckmorse.com/nazi_origins_arab_terror.html