Bin Laden Comes Clean, War On Terror Continues

Greg Bolcer gbolcer at endeavors.com
Mon Jan 19 11:24:36 PST 2004


Okay, Geege. I'm going to state the obvious.  Lying
requires intent to deceive [cite Bok, Sisella "Lying:
Moral Choice in Public and Private Life"].   Other
than someone's feelers, there's never been anywhere
other that monday morning quarterbacking to
prove intent,only potential motives.   The only
potential motive I've seen is political gain, but
there was never any guarantee of that, i.e. it was
an unclear outcome.  
 
Greg
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of Geege 
	Sent: Sat 1/17/2004 6:05 PM 
	To: Gordon Mohr; FoRK Mailing List 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: Bin Laden Comes Clean, War On Terror Continues
	
	

	how weirdo can it get in here.
	
	you get the difference between a hypothetical and an imminent threat?  i, as
	a rabid bush hater, posted nelson's story to further my contention that bush
	is a flaming liar.  ian took it one step further and tried to put "retard"
	between "flaming" and "liar."
	
	you and i can at least agree that bush is more of a flaming *cognitive* liar
	than ian makes him out to be.
	
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com]On Behalf Of
	Gordon Mohr
	Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:19 PM
	To: FoRK Mailing List
	Subject: Re: Bin Laden Comes Clean, War On Terror Continues
	
	
	Ian Andrew Bell wrote:
	> On 16-Jan-04, at 8:24 PM, Geege wrote:
	>
	>> http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm
	>
	>> Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and
	>> chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities
	>> along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly
	>> known as drones.
	>
	> Holy shit!  These Senator-types sure are dumb.  THAT doesn't even pass
	> the sniff test.  Iraq has never had ICBMs, all they've ever had are the
	> SCUD (and worse) missiles.  WHERE WOULD YOU GET AN ICBM? FRY's
	> ELECTRONICS?  (Hint:  you can't.  After all, Fry's won't take AMEX).
	
	Again, you're so hopped-up on Bush-hatred you're hallucinating. The
	article doesn't mention ICBMs.
	
	It mentions unmanned aerial vehicles -- AKA "remote-controlled planes".
	
	Unmanned propeller-driven drones to deliver bombs were successfully built
	without digital technology or modern materials in the WW1 era.
	
	Today, you can buy flying toys that could deliver a small payload (like a
	toxin or contagion) a mile or more away at retail for cheap. (Everyone
	agrees Iraq had chemical and biological stocks around the time of the
	1991 gulf war.)
	
	Any modern terror group, rogue government, or smuggling organization with
	a budget could do much better than toy planes.
	
	The threat is credible, even if in any once case it may not have been
	present.
	
	- Gordon
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	FoRK mailing list
	http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
	
	
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	FoRK mailing list
	http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
	



More information about the FoRK mailing list