[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 memorial, systemic bias, lunacy in Wikipedians, and other fine topics (was Re: jaygy and indefinate ban)

[geni]

On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> India already has bases there-the sudden entry of the U.S would offend
> the former , and I'm pretty sure a former Soviet-block country like
> Tajikistan, or any other country in proximity to the Subcontinent,
> would not really allow U.S military presence on it's soil.
>

You mean like say [[Uzbekistan]]


> That would make it appear as if America was supporting the King-who
> has always been viewed as somewhat of a dictator.
>

When has that worried the US in the past?


>  These would not have evoked as strong a reaction in the U.S as the
> killing of 3000 Americans ON American soil would.

So they can get around that by campianing and the like.

> As for WMDs- it is
> not really all that easy to "plant" them without the act being
> noticed.
>

Heh you don't know much about analytical chemistry do you. Plently of
fairly trivial ways to do it. You could probably just spray
Methylphosphonyl difluoride onto a pipe that the Weapons inspctors
wanted to cheack or the like. A lot less complex than trying to plant
explosives in the twin towers.

>
> The Iraqis are not foolhardy enough to actively provoke the U.S by
> shooting down one of the latter's planes.

They did. They also tried to do so repeatedly.

> Also,  by analysing the
> plane's flight-path it would be obvious that the pilot did not make
> any effort to dodge the missile. Also the lack of flares (used to
> avoid heat-seeking missiles) or chaffs would be noticed. Thus, it
> would be obvious that the American pilot was not making any effort to
> evade the attack-a very unusual occurence indeed. More importantly I
> doubt whether the U.S. airforce has a kamikaze squadron.
>

So? Cut a few wirers and the pilot would never see the thing comming.
There would be various other methods. Send a B-52 over for example.


-- 
geni