Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ultimate Guide To Terror (A Respected Muslim Finally Says What Needs To Be Said)
Convention Lecture | April, 2004 | Haim Harari

Posted on 07/08/2004 3:53:41 PM PDT by Southack

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 07/08/2004 3:53:42 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; section9; Nick Danger; Travis McGee; Squantos; blam; Cannoneer No. 4; yonif; ...

2 posted on 07/08/2004 3:54:36 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
bump for after Jeopardy.
3 posted on 07/08/2004 3:56:19 PM PDT by don-o (Stop Freeploading. Do the right thing and sign up for a monthly donation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Poverty doesn't cause terrorism. Islam causes terrorism.


4 posted on 07/08/2004 4:00:26 PM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Interesting article. Coming back to read the whole thing later when I have time.


5 posted on 07/08/2004 4:02:39 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Yep, bump for this evening's reading. :-)


6 posted on 07/08/2004 4:08:26 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (ROPMA !! No words are sufficient to describe these EVIL people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Looks good, will read later


7 posted on 07/08/2004 4:09:13 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Excellent read! I'm going to send this to O'Reilly, Cheney, and Bush as well as my Congressman.

This guy tells it like it is, and it is something se all need to hear!

8 posted on 07/08/2004 4:12:16 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound (If you can read this, you are too close!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rageaholic
Been saying this for years. There is no real "peace process" in the middle east for the simple reason that the Arab Israeli confict is a scam.

The only thing the Arabs have created for themselves in the past 50 years is a terrorist infrastructure that uses a bogus "palistinian refugee crisis" to feed the hate that puts the "islamic charity" donations in the pockets of the terrorist organizers. The last thing they'll allow is is peace.

Furthermore, Islam, with its toxic concepts of post death X rated sex parties, redemtion through Jihad, its ultra violent Profet, etc is uniquely suited to brew generations of terrorists.

9 posted on 07/08/2004 4:15:00 PM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Is the title misleading? Who is "respected muslim"? Haim Harari is an Israeli scientist, and, judging from the name, a Jew.
10 posted on 07/08/2004 4:19:31 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Thanks, he gets it!!


11 posted on 07/08/2004 4:27:01 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Southack

bump


12 posted on 07/08/2004 4:28:10 PM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Excellent post (I mean it). The background in the first half of the article is unusually succinct and forthright, but I do have a couple of quibbles to the remedial strategy Mr. Harari is offering here:

Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list.

First, he's leaving out a critical player, Pakistan. If the fundies take over there, they already have the nukes. Leaving Pakistan with its huge and largely radicalized population out of the discussion is, a mistake. Whether Musharraf is a friend or not, it is perilous to leave them off the list when contemplating the strategic resources necessary to win.

Second, the US still has to contend with China AND Chinese sponsored fronts around the world. As he already offered, some forms of Islamic terror have communist affiliation. America must deal with terrorism with the realization that its use to weaken us before a fatal blow may in fact be an early feint in a much more dangerous conflict. In my judgment, his focus exclusively upon Islamic terror, is an Israeli-centric perspective that may be critically short-sighted.

In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate. It is pointless to try to understand the subtle differences between the Sunni terror of Al Qaida and Hamas and the Shiite terror of Hezbollah, Sadr and other Iranian inspired enterprises. When it serves their business needs, all of them collaborate beautifully.

Finally, he never discusses HOW to cut off the money. by developing alternative energy resources. Just as Reagan critically wounded the Soviet Union by decontrolling oil prices in the US to increase domestic exploration, so we must develop all our resources, coal, nuclear, biomass, and petrochemical, to eliminate the source of funding of Arab terror as well as to strengthen the economy that funds our defense in the long run. The key there is our own regulatory straitjacket, particularly environmental law.

ONLY after we bring the Islamic world to its economic knees will the funding for the madrassas dry up.

13 posted on 07/08/2004 4:37:47 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Privatizating environmental regulation is critical to national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Excellent analysis by Mr. Harari.


14 posted on 07/08/2004 4:37:58 PM PDT by Califelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Southack

C4Bush Library BUMP!


15 posted on 07/08/2004 4:44:26 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (I approve this message: character and integrity matter. Bush/Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Bump and read later.


16 posted on 07/08/2004 4:44:28 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Must get moose and squirrel ... B. Badanov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: Servant of the 9

WOW


18 posted on 07/08/2004 4:49:11 PM PDT by NathanR (Santiago!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Southack

ping


19 posted on 07/08/2004 4:54:01 PM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion have been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Jays
"Holy long article to read later, Batman!" BUMP.
20 posted on 07/08/2004 4:55:02 PM PDT by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Travis McGee; wretchard; Nick Danger; section9; Jeff Head
"Second, the US still has to contend with China AND Chinese sponsored fronts around the world. As he already offered, some forms of Islamic terror have communist affiliation."

Yes and no.

China is at a cross roads. On the one hand, they want Taiwan and international respect. On the other hand, they want prosperity and advancement.

In their remote province of Xinjiang, they are at war with an Islamic rebellion. On their frontier, they occupy a part of India's Kashmir, share a border with a nutcase in North Korea, nuclear super-power Russia, and have been stood down by a few million Taiwanese.

If they go to war against Taiwan, Russia, or India, they face international isolation, trade sanctions, and perhaps even open war with the West, as well as lose their biggest trading customer, the U.S...and they'd still be faced in Xingjiang with precisely what Russia is up against in Chechnya.

What they want, of course, is to use nutcases like North Korea and Osama Bin Laden to distract and "pacify" the U.S. in regards to Taiwan so that Taiwan falls without a shot being fired.

But such a bluff can only be carried so far. Even if China completely sides with Osama, the rebellion in Xinjiang will continue. That's quite a price to pay for losing your biggest trading partner.

So China is at a cross-roads. Will China choose Osama (or to continue their bluff), or will they ally with the U.S. against the same sorts of people who are waging war against America, Israel, and Russia?

Note carefully that China is trying to forge friendships with both Israel and Russia. This is a hint of where they may very well go in the future.

Why wage war with a nuclear armed, billion-plus population of India? Why piss away their largest trading partner in the U.S.? What is to gain for China by carrying their current pro-Osama bluff too far?

21 posted on 07/08/2004 4:57:27 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rageaholic
Poverty doesn't cause terrorism. Islam causes terrorism.

Islam also causes poverty. I am not saying this in jest. It is true. I have seen Islamic brodcasts dealing with exactly this point.

ALLAH FUBAR

22 posted on 07/08/2004 4:59:52 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (LWS - Legislating While Stupid. Someone should make this illegal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Bump.


23 posted on 07/08/2004 5:06:09 PM PDT by Flashman_at_the_charge (A proud member of the self-preservation society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

Naturally. If you have three constantly-pregnant pieces of female property who are not permitted to work, and you live in a stone-age theocracy, you're gonna be poor as dirt.


24 posted on 07/08/2004 5:13:50 PM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Southack
What they want, of course, is to use nutcases like North Korea and Osama Bin Laden to distract and "pacify" the U.S. in regards to Taiwan so that Taiwan falls without a shot being fired.

You are leaving out China's extensive relationships in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South Americas. Their clearly apparent willingness to develo[ maritime logistica capability, work through the likes of Messrs. Lula & Chavez, as well as fomenting domestic insurrection here (with the complicity of the fifth column in our universities) are routinely overlooked, both strategically and tactcally.

Why wage war with a nuclear armed, billion-plus population of India? Why piss away their largest trading partner in the U.S.? What is to gain for China by carrying their current pro-Osama bluff too far?

World domination, however foolish or illogical it might be, has always had its attractions.

25 posted on 07/08/2004 5:20:25 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Privatizating environmental regulation is critical to national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

read this.


26 posted on 07/08/2004 5:21:22 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Here is one Muslim who seems to get it. He makes a lot of sense, although he does not address that nearly all Muslim regimes and large numbers of indigenous Western Muslim populations will have to be dealt with as well before this war is over. This is not just about neutralizing Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The reason is they, and the populations which rule and inhabit them, are Muslim. The entire pathology of backwardness and stunning oppression exhibited here springs from that poisoned well.

27 posted on 07/08/2004 5:31:41 PM PDT by Gritty ("Equality is unacceptable to Islam. The non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer-Amir Taheri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"World domination, however foolish or illogical it might be, has always had its attractions."

Not even remotely possible by any non-U.S. nation.

The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

China has lost its last two ground wars: its invasion of India in the 1960's and its invasion of North Vietnam in 1979.

In contrast, China has had some serious success growing its economy and peacefully trading with the world.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate. And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

It would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

28 posted on 07/08/2004 5:38:05 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine would have existed for 100 years. The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone. Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.

An excellent read. Excellent data.

29 posted on 07/08/2004 5:38:28 PM PDT by 2banana (They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Please provide a link for this excellent commentary.

I would like to be able to send this on to many friends and to quite a few resistant progressive acquaintances.

Thank you for posting this.


30 posted on 07/08/2004 5:42:54 PM PDT by Bennett46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Wow -- thanks for posting this! This is the most important, vital thing I've read on Free Republic since I signed up. THANKS.

One thing I'd like to know .. who is this guy? Is he Muslim, or a Jew? What company did he speak to? I can't help but hope he's a Muslim. What really fries me is that it shouldn't matter -- what he says here is right on and eloquent, clear-sighted, humble. It shouldn't be discounted if the speaker is a Jew. But by many people, it would be.

31 posted on 07/08/2004 6:07:13 PM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, and victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Very Good.

Where's the URL?
What's with the commentary in parentheses? Is he Jewish or muslim?


32 posted on 07/08/2004 6:17:30 PM PDT by nuconvert ( "Let Freedom Reign !" ) ( Azadi baraye Iran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Major FR Announcement!

National March Against Terror


33 posted on 07/08/2004 6:17:54 PM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

How much of the chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal can we really use? The only basis for which we have them is for deterrent value, to prevent like kind. Unless this isn't the America I stand for, they aren't offensive weapons, that is, unless you are advocating preemptive use of WMD. If you are, you should say so.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

India yes, but they can take care of themselves. Taiwan... do you really think a US President would initiate a nuclear response if China attacked Taiwan? Really?

Not a prayer. You clearly don't understand the impotence of power.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate.

Thus nothing. China doesn't want to dominate Japan; they want to destroy it. That's easier.

And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

False premise. First, I'm not talking about now, or even ten years from now, but perhaps thirty years out. If we are still exhausted and embroiled after trying to tame 1.3 BILLION Muslims, how much treasure and firepower will we have left for China?

Here's a clue: The US military arsenal was nearly depleted after Kosovo. We are running massive debts now. We haven't dealt with a quarter of the Islamic threat. We are pulling troops to cover Iraq now and making concessions to globalists (who want nothing more than to abet our demise as a sovereign nation) to get paltry help. We are accumulating enormous debts in front of the retirement of the baby boom. Our balance of payments is seriously out of whack. I don't think our long term prospects are that good unless we make serious domestic reforms, else we will not remain a dominant power. Meanwhile, our social and intellectual institutions (our crappy schools) are headed in the opposite direction. The Chinese know all of that, which is why the are only too happy to provide nuclear technology to Pakistan via their North Korean surrogates, , tie us up covering Taiwan, continue to deepen their penetration of the Western Hemisphere, and build a world class manufacturing and engineering infrastructure. They are patient. They have cash.

IMO, your position is sheer hubris.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

Why would they bother rousing India? Fighting a land war across the Himalaya is crazy from either of their perspectives without massive air or sea lift capability (which China has, but India doesn't.

It (China) would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

ICBMs from China are the least my worries and nuclear war is far more survivable than you depict (as the Chinese know since our own experts went there to show them how... thanks to RINO, Nixon). Unless we are going to inspect every container ship on the high seas, we have no idea whence a nuclear or biological attack may originate from ships spread out all over the planet and in our ports. Our JIT economy with its food supply lines all over the world doesn't carry the inventory to sustain even a minor interruption. We aren't at all prepared for a conventional attack, much less an unconventional attack, from either a military or a civil perspective, much less economic. Once such a domestic strife is initiated, with a possible deal for the American Southwest in it for Mexico, what President will push the button when dealing with a domestic insurrection? How much of our law enforcement and domestic military would it take? We'd be sitting ducks at that point for a nuclear attack.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, there are a lot of reasons to include more than simply Iran, Syria, and Lebanon in a list of objectives. The particular omission of Pakistan in that list is especially egregious. In the short term, ESPECIALLY considering the source of conflict (namely the public indoctrination in violence and hatred being fomented by the Saudis), the author is absolutely correct to cite that we cut off the money, but never explained how to accomplish that tactical objective. That is why I emphasize privatizing regulation of access to domestic energy sources as the critical first step. Restoring our economic integrity while debilitating theirs (until the Muslims clean up their act) is absolutely essential to winning the long battle, a task that you (and the President) clearly underestimate.

34 posted on 07/08/2004 6:20:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Privatizating environmental regulation is critical to national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Yep. and bumap.


35 posted on 07/08/2004 6:23:03 PM PDT by lodwick (B.L.O.A.T.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Major FR Announcement!

National March Against Terror


36 posted on 07/08/2004 6:23:38 PM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Southack

I hope I wasn't the only one who read the opening paragraphs and started doing a Snopes check on this guy. It reads way too good to be true, reads like a westerner wrote it, and any references to "I got it from a source at an unidentified multi-national corporation" immediately sets my urban legends alarm bells ringing.

Fortunately, there really is a Haim Harari at the Davidson Institute. If it's a hoax, it's a really, really good hoax. And he appears to be Jewish.


37 posted on 07/08/2004 7:14:55 PM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

bttt


38 posted on 07/08/2004 7:21:26 PM PDT by The Californian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination. - Southack

How much of the chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal can we really use? The only basis for which we have them is for deterrent value, to prevent like kind. Unless this isn't the America I stand for, they aren't offensive weapons, that is, unless you are advocating preemptive use of WMD. If you are, you should say so." - Carry_Okie

Oh good grief. You are paying so little attention that you are going to cause me to type my fingers off. First of all, we've already used our nuclear (ww2 Hiroshima, Nagasaki), chemical (WW1 Mustard Gas), and biological (ww1 Anthrax) arsenals for offensive operations long before you were likely even born.

Second, my point in mentioning those primarily defensive arsenals was to show incontravertable evidence that the U.S. can't be dominated by any other power.

Can't happen... simply because we possess them in such vast quantities.

Thus, the entire notion...the whole concept that any other nation could rationally seek out global domination in the next 50 to 100 years is the stuff of PURE Grade A science fiction.

If you want to get nuked, gassed, and bugged to a degree that not even the biblical book of Revelations could describe, then simply try to dominate the U.S. militarily.

39 posted on 07/08/2004 7:56:46 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FBD

fyi


40 posted on 07/08/2004 8:04:01 PM PDT by jla (http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/memorial_fund.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"India yes, but they can take care of themselves. Taiwan... do you really think a US President would initiate a nuclear response if China attacked Taiwan? Really? Not a prayer. You clearly don't understand the impotence of power."

Taiwan financed, South Africa provided the location and the uranium, and Israel provided the technical expertise to develop their atomic arsenals. That's how Israel got the bomb. South Africa has voluntarily disarmed and abandoned its nuclear arsenal, but I doubt that Taiwan has felt so inclined.

As I made painfully evident in my original post, China gets nuked *EVEN WITHOUT THE U.S.* intervening in any Indian or Taiwanese invasion.

China is surrounded by nuclear neighbors. Taiwan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Pakistan. Their little neighbor Vietnam isn't nuclear, but it managed to whip the PLA left, right, up, and down, back in 1979 when China got uppity.

Thus, China's ability to militarily expand even in their own region is in serious question.

And if they can't expand their dominance (heck, they might not even be dominate over India, Taiwan, and Japan as it is) regionally, then by default they can't dominate the planet per yer ridiculous "global domination" theory.

41 posted on 07/08/2004 8:05:22 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"Why would they bother rousing India?"

Well, if they wanted to follow your "global domination" theory, then they'd have to rouse everyone on the globe.

Which frankly is so ludicrous as to be laughable. China can't even dominate its own region. It has barely more people than India, is less productive than Japan, and is surrounded in its own region by nuclear powers.

If you can't dominate your own region, then by default you can't dominate the globe.

42 posted on 07/08/2004 8:09:36 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Bump for later


43 posted on 07/08/2004 8:18:56 PM PDT by ODC-GIRL (President Reagan: A life well lived, he will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"ICBMs from China are the least my worries and nuclear war is far more survivable than you depict (as the Chinese know since our own experts went there to show them how... thanks to RINO, Nixon). Unless we are going to inspect every container ship on the high seas, we have no idea whence a nuclear or biological attack may originate from ships spread out all over the planet and in our ports."

Nuclear attacks via slow overseas container ships are a very dicey, very unlikely situation. Doable, but extremely unlikely due to the technical support that nukes require.

The half life of the atomic trigger isotopes is typically less than 90 days. Likewise, the radiation from the atomic core and shell plays havoc with the electronics and conventional explosives used to start the chain reaction. Moreover, heavy metals such as uranium and plutonium are among the most rust-prone, fragile metals known to man...not a great thing to have working against you if you are trying to ship a working device overseas...and the assembly of such devices on-site requires extremely competent personnel and a clean lab...something that takes a fair amount of effort to put onto an ocean going seasick machine for an 8 to 12 week journey.

And such an attack would only work once. All ships would be halted miles off of our coasts after the first successful blast.

As for a bio attack...bio agents are piss poor military weapons. They make for great terror weapons because they frighten the effeminate liberal news media...but they don't kill on the spot and can be contained and fought with medical technology.

44 posted on 07/08/2004 8:19:02 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"Our JIT economy with its food supply lines all over the world doesn't carry the inventory to sustain even a minor interruption."

Who spoon fed you such nonsense?

Imports and exports combined only make up 15% of our entire economy. They could disappear tomorrow and 85% of America would never miss 'em.

Currently, 9.5% of our annual GDP is from imports, while 5.5% is what we export. Well, if all imports were gone tomorrow, that would mean that we'd have to grow our domestic economy by 9.5% to make up for what we no longer imported.

That's hardly something to fear. Throw me into that briar patch.

45 posted on 07/08/2004 8:22:42 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"... I emphasize privatizing regulation of access to domestic energy sources as the critical first step."

I'm all for it. Drill Alaska, off of the coast of California and Florida, and in federal forests.

Drill like mad.

But don't get too worked up about it. Almost the entire German war machine of WW2 was run off of coal oil, something that becomes economically viable here in the U.S. today if oil stays above $45 per barrel for any great length of time...and the U.S. has more coal than the rest of the world combined. We can make coal oil long after Saudi Arabia has bled their last oil well dry.

What crude oil does is give us *cheap* energy. But replacements for crude (e.g. coal oil, propane, nuclear, solar, etc.) are simply a little more expensive.

Not a lot, just a little more expensive. We can live without them if we have to. Knock 5% off of one year's GDP and 2.5% off of the next and you'd probably come reasonably close to how we'd look if there was no more black crude oil for whatever reason.

46 posted on 07/08/2004 8:28:20 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Howlin; Stillwaters

ping and bump!


47 posted on 07/08/2004 8:35:26 PM PDT by lonevoice (Some things have to be believed to be seen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Californian

bttt


48 posted on 07/08/2004 8:36:29 PM PDT by jonascord (What is better than the wind at 6 O'Clock on the 600 yard line?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

bump


49 posted on 07/08/2004 9:09:43 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImaTexan
Ping

Very loooooooong article, but a good read.

50 posted on 07/08/2004 9:10:54 PM PDT by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson