A B-52 bomber was mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads during a flight from North Dakota to

[Guest James Of Tucson]

On Sep 5, 10:38 pm, Bob <p...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:19:04 -0700, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

> >On Sep 5, 9:51 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Sep 5, 7:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> >> > The bomber carried advanced cruise missiles as part of a Defense Department

> >> > program to retire 400 of the missiles, the Military Times said, quoting

> >> > three officers who spoke on condition they remain anonymous because they

> >> > were not authorized to discuss the incident.

>

> >> So... some reporter at the Military Times knows the identities of

> >> three military officers who have clearly committed treason. Shouldn't

> >> they be in custody by now?

>

> >Little thing called the First Amendment.

>

> In the military?

> Thanks for the laugh...

 

First Amendment is no defense for being accessory to treason.

[Guest James Of Tucson]

On Sep 5, 7:14 pm, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

> Bullshit. The improper handling of a nuclear weapon is one hell of an

> exception. Or would you like to see one fall into the hands of

> terrorists?

 

I would prefer that the Air Force did not reveal the fact that B-52's

aren't always armed when they are in the air.

 

There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air if it's not

armed and ready to respond. That's a liability, and this knowledge is

a weapon.

[Guest Bert Hyman]

james0tucson@gmail.com (James Of Tucson) wrote in

news:1189094256.898470.117330@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air if it's not

> armed and ready to respond.

 

That would make it a bit difficult to simply move the hardware around

the country, don't you think?

 

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

[Guest Patriot Games]

"Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1189045496.590536.173420@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 5, 10:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> September 5, 2007

>> Sources: B - 52 Mistakenly Carried Nukes

>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>> Filed at 10:13 a.m. ET

>> BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly loaded with five

>> nuclear

>> warheads during a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana, a newspaper

>> reported Wednesday.

> Mistake my ass. The nukes were headed for Iran...

 

Were?

 

Still are.....................

> when the crew mutinied and landed at Barksdale, refusing to start another

> war.

 

Sorry, you have Americans confused with the French....

[Guest Billzz]

"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message

news:Xns99A36FB888A12VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...

> james0tucson@gmail.com (James Of Tucson) wrote in

> news:1189094256.898470.117330@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

>

>> There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air if it's not

>> armed and ready to respond.

>

> That would make it a bit difficult to simply move the hardware around

> the country, don't you think?

>

> --

> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

 

Or move it to a civilian contractor for upgrading of the electronics.

 

"Hey, Joe, how come these fat things under the wings are so warm?"

 

Anyway, there are a lot of things not talked about, which is the way it

should be, and there are some things that should be talked about to insure

that any potential enemy does not get the wrong impression.

 

In the wonderful days of the cold war I commanded a US Army unit of Honest

John rockets, which (and they are all gone now) had some wonderful 1600

pound warheads. The practice warheads were one color, the real ones

another. We were to send four launchers to Grafenwoehr (next to the Czech.

border) and hide them so the USAF could see if their recon could find them.

Of course the bright blue practice rounds had to be repainted the olive drab

of th real ones. The first thing done was to notify the Soviet Military

Liason Mission in West Germany of what we were doing, so they did not think

that we were mobilizing for war.

 

I am reminded of the movie, "Dr. Strangelove" and the plot twist has a

"doomsday bomb" which, if any side starts something, then it's all over.

The twist is the one side did not tell the other side that they had such a

thing. I think one of the last lines was, "Don't you think you should have

told somebody?"

[Guest sbm2006@shaw.ca]

On Sep 6, 8:57 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 7:14 pm, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

>

> > Bullshit. The improper handling of a nuclear weapon is one hell of an

> > exception. Or would you like to see one fall into the hands of

> > terrorists?

>

> I would prefer that the Air Force did not reveal the fact that B-52's

> aren't always armed when they are in the air.

>

> There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air

 

Sure there is, idiot. If it's just moving stuff around like that.

>if it's not

> armed and ready to respond. That's a liability, and this knowledge is

> a weapon.

 

Yeah, they might suddenly have to nuke Nebraska. Moron.

[Guest sbm2006@shaw.ca]

On Sep 5, 10:38 pm, Bob <p...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:19:04 -0700, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

> >On Sep 5, 9:51 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Sep 5, 7:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> >> > The bomber carried advanced cruise missiles as part of a Defense Department

> >> > program to retire 400 of the missiles, the Military Times said, quoting

> >> > three officers who spoke on condition they remain anonymous because they

> >> > were not authorized to discuss the incident.

>

> >> So... some reporter at the Military Times knows the identities of

> >> three military officers who have clearly committed treason. Shouldn't

> >> they be in custody by now?

>

> >Little thing called the First Amendment.

>

> In the military?

> Thanks for the laugh...

 

Are you sure the reporter was in the military? Plenty of civilian

magazines out there with a military focus.

[Guest]

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1189094072.740910.142150@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> Why the hell are we telling the enemy, no SCREAMING to the enemy, that

> we put B-52's in the air not fully armed? That, if a B-52 is in the

> air, it will have to land, be armed, and take off again before it can

> perform a bombing mission?

 

Which "enemy" are you referring to that has the ability to attack the U$ from

the Air ?

 

>

> Why don't military commanders recognize the potential for this

> information alone to be used as a weapon, before they go blabbing

> about it to the press, and by extension, the enemy?

 

 

Which "enemy" that has the ability to attack the U$ from the air doesn't

already know the intricate details of the U$ Air Defense systems ?

 

 

>

> Whoever disclosed this information should be summarily executed for

> treason.

 

You should be executed for being profoundly ignorant.

[Guest sbm2006@shaw.ca]

On Sep 6, 8:55 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 10:38 pm, Bob <p...@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>

>

> > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:19:04 -0700, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

> > >On Sep 5, 9:51 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> On Sep 5, 7:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> > >> > The bomber carried advanced cruise missiles as part of a Defense Department

> > >> > program to retire 400 of the missiles, the Military Times said, quoting

> > >> > three officers who spoke on condition they remain anonymous because they

> > >> > were not authorized to discuss the incident.

>

> > >> So... some reporter at the Military Times knows the identities of

> > >> three military officers who have clearly committed treason. Shouldn't

> > >> they be in custody by now?

>

> > >Little thing called the First Amendment.

>

> > In the military?

> > Thanks for the laugh...

>

> First Amendment is no defense for being accessory to treason.

 

Demanding accountablity is not treason. Unless you'd next like to see

one of those nukes wind up sold to the highest bidder.

[Guest]

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1189094256.898470.117330@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 5, 7:14 pm, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

>

>> Bullshit. The improper handling of a nuclear weapon is one hell of an

>> exception. Or would you like to see one fall into the hands of

>> terrorists?

>

> I would prefer that the Air Force did not reveal the fact that B-52's

> aren't always armed when they are in the air.

 

Why? Because you assume that the other nations that do have

the ability to strike the U$ from the air are as pig-ignorant about

the workings of the U$ military as you are?

 

>

> There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air if it's not

> armed and ready to respond.

 

Sez the pig-ignorant imbecile.

> That's a liability, and this knowledge is

> a weapon.

 

The paucity of knowlege you possess could never be used as a "weapon".

[Guest]

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1189094157.356208.194730@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 5, 10:38 pm, Bob <p...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:19:04 -0700, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:

>> >On Sep 5, 9:51 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> On Sep 5, 7:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>

>> >> > The bomber carried advanced cruise missiles as part of a Defense

>> >> > Department

>> >> > program to retire 400 of the missiles, the Military Times said, quoting

>> >> > three officers who spoke on condition they remain anonymous because they

>> >> > were not authorized to discuss the incident.

>>

>> >> So... some reporter at the Military Times knows the identities of

>> >> three military officers who have clearly committed treason. Shouldn't

>> >> they be in custody by now?

>>

>> >Little thing called the First Amendment.

>>

>> In the military?

>> Thanks for the laugh...

>

> First Amendment is no defense for being accessory to treason.

 

Ignorance is no defense for being the moron that you are.

[Guest z]

On Sep 5, 11:11 am, "Dr Ben Dover" <Ben Dover @proctologist.com>

wrote:

> WOw Nukes on a B 52 !!!? HOw Shocking ! Libmaggots were hoping the nUkes

> were loaded on a Russian Mig and dropped on the US .

 

1) The info was deliberately leaked by somebody on the inside. Maybe

the AF is infested with liberals; or maybe somebody had something

important he wanted to tell us but didn't want to stick his neck out

too far.

 

2) The cruise missiles were mounted on the B-52, not hauled as cargo.

You don't tote cruise missiles around between one storage spot and

another by mounting them on B-52s then dismounting them when you get

there.

 

3) The B-52 was headed to Barksdale AFB. Barksdale is a staging point

for the Middle East.

"Barksdale warriors and B-52s have a proud tradition serving both at

home and abroad in support of the Global War on Terrorism; they have

played vital roles in combat operations supporting Operation Enduring

Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom."

http://www.barksdale.af.mil/

"In March 2003, time finally ran out for Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein

whose regime had continually defied the U.N. for almost 13 years.

Returning yet again to the deadly skies of Iraq , Barksdale B-52s flew

over 150 combat sorties against military targets throughout the

southern half of the country. In a lightning campaign dubbed Operation

Iraqi Freedom, U.S. and Coalition military forces ousted Saddam

Hussein paving the way for democracy in Iraq .

Today, the men and women of Barksdale continue to serve at both home

and abroad in support of the Global War on Terrorism."

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-for-iran/

 

Why on earth would somebody on the inside want to leak the info that

we are mounting nuclear cruise missiles on B52s sent to a base which

is a staging point for the Middle East? Must be a liberal. You know

for sure the Bushies wouldn't secretly be setting up for a nuclear

strike on Iran without public discussion. That's not like them at all.

[Guest z]

On Sep 6, 11:54 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why the hell are we telling the enemy, no SCREAMING to the enemy, that

> we put B-52's in the air not fully armed? That, if a B-52 is in the

> air, it will have to land, be armed, and take off again before it can

> perform a bombing mission?

>

> Why don't military commanders recognize the potential for this

> information alone to be used as a weapon, before they go blabbing

> about it to the press, and by extension, the enemy?

>

> Whoever disclosed this information should be summarily executed for

> treason.

 

You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to drop

an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know that

we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

[Guest z]

On Sep 5, 11:21 am, n...@isp.com (Dersu Uzala) wrote:

> In article <LpKdnYVxJ-K0WkPbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mn...@comcast.com>,

> BenDo...@proctologist.com says...

>

>

>

>

>

> >"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> >news:SozDi.55814$Lu.33504@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

> >> September 5, 2007

> >> Sources: B - 52 Mistakenly Carried Nukes

> >> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> >> Filed at 10:13 a.m. ET

>

> >> BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly loaded with five

> >> nuclear warheads during a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana, a

> >> newspaper reported Wednesday.

> >>===================

>

> >WOw Nukes on a B 52 !!!? HOw Shocking ! Libmaggots were hoping the nUkes

> >were loaded on a Russian Mig and dropped on the US .

>

> I think the point is that the military was lax enough to let nukes go where

> they were not supposd to be. If they can be incorrectly put on B-52's, then

> perhaps they could be "diverted" to other locales as well.-

 

Uh, nuclear cruise missiles are mounted on B-52s headed for a base

that's a jumping off point for the Middle East, by accident? Wow, some

coincidence.

[Guest z]

On Sep 6, 11:57 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no reason to put a military aircraft in the air if it's not

> armed and ready to respond. That's a liability, and this knowledge is

> a weapon.

 

So, if you just want to move it to another place, you'd put it on a

flatbed?

[Guest Scotius (Ponti Fickatur)]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:24:56 -0700, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

<PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 5, 10:52 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> September 5, 2007

>> Sources: B - 52 Mistakenly Carried Nukes

>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>> Filed at 10:13 a.m. ET

>>

>> BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly loaded with five nuclear

>> warheads during a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana, a newspaper

>> reported Wednesday.

>>

>> The bomber carried advanced cruise missiles as part of a Defense Department

>> program to retire 400 of the missiles, the Military Times said, quoting

>> three officers who spoke on condition they remain anonymous because they

>> were not authorized to discuss the incident.

>>

>> The officers said the nuclear warheads should have been removed before the

>> missiles were mounted onto pylons under the bomber's wings for the Aug. 30

>> flight from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base

>> in Louisiana, the newspaper said Wednesday.

>>

>> A Minot Air Force Base spokeswoman, Sgt. Marelise Wood, referred questions

>> by The Associated Press to the Air Force secretary's office in Washington. A

>> spokesman there was out of the office Wednesday morning and not immediately

>> available for comment.

>>

>> An Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Ed Thomas, told the Military Times that the

>> weapons were in Air Force control at all times and the missiles were safely

>> transferred.

>>

>> Air Force policy does not permit officials to say whether nuclear warheads

>> were involved, Thomas said.

>>

>> However, he said all nuclear weapons at Minot were accounted for.

>>

>> ''Air Force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions

>> handling,'' Thomas said. ''The weapons were always in our custody and there

>> was never a danger to the American public.''

>>

>> He said an investigation was launched and the crews involved in loading the

>> missiles were decertified pending corrective action or training.

>

>

>

>Mistake my ass. The nukes were headed for Iran when the crew mutinied

>and landed at Barksdale, refusing to start another war.

>

 

I doubt it. I VERY seriously doubt that nukes would be

transported on a B-52, the lumbering old warhorse. It may be a good

plane for reliability, but if they wanted to take them over for

possible use in Iran, they'd have hidden them on a cargo aircraft.

AND, if they wanted to take them over in a bomber, the B-1 Lancer or

B-2 Spirit would have been the plane to use.

[Guest James Of Tucson]

On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

> You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to drop

> an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know that

> we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

 

"WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

disposition and protocols of the air force,

is a potential weapon.

 

Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

armor.

Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

 

Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

war. It's ridiculous.

[Guest Sid9]

James Of Tucson wrote:

> On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

>

>> You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to

>> drop an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know

>> that we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

>

> "WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

> disposition and protocols of the air force,

> is a potential weapon.

>

> Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

> dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

> armor.

> Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

> by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

>

> Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

> war. It's ridiculous.

 

 

Who is the "enemy" in Iraq?

 

Shiite Triba A

Shiite Tribe B

Sunni Triba A

Sunni Tribe B

Shiite Religious Fanatic

Sunni Religious Fanatic

The Iraqi National Police

Al-Qaeda of Iraq

 

Who?

 

Or all of them our enemy?

[Guest Bruno Muscarelli]

"Dr Ben Dover" <Ben Dover @proctologist.com> wrote in message

news:LpKdnYVxJ-K0WkPbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:SozDi.55814$Lu.33504@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

> > September 5, 2007

> > Sources: B - 52 Mistakenly Carried Nukes

> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> > Filed at 10:13 a.m. ET

> >

> > BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly loaded with five

> > nuclear warheads during a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana, a

> > newspaper reported Wednesday.

> >===================

>

> WOw Nukes on a B 52 !!!? HOw Shocking ! Libmaggots were hoping the nUkes

> were loaded on a Russian Mig and dropped on the US .

 

If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation, then SHUT THE FUCK

UP, you god damn moron!! You assholes on the right are the ones who keep

calling for "nuking the ragheads". For your information, those nukes went to

a location where they launch to the Middle East, so I guess you stupidass

neocons are going to get your wish after all.

[Guest Latrodectus]

On Sep 6, 9:54 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why the hell are we telling the enemy, no SCREAMING to the enemy, that

> we put B-52's in the air not fully armed? That, if a B-52 is in the

> air, it will have to land, be armed, and take off again before it can

> perform a bombing mission?

>

> Why don't military commanders recognize the potential for this

> information alone to be used as a weapon, before they go blabbing

> about it to the press, and by extension, the enemy?

>

> Whoever disclosed this information should be summarily executed for

> treason.

 

They were just moving them to another location, they weren't on a

combat mission.

[Guest Latrodectus]

On Sep 9, 10:53 am, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

>

> > You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to drop

> > an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know that

> > we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

>

> "WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

> disposition and protocols of the air force,

> is a potential weapon.

>

> Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

> dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

> armor.

> Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

> by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

>

> Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

> war. It's ridiculous.

 

The military can't function without civilian leadership, and that

requires that they know what is going on, including mistakes. BTW,

the enemy can tell when a vehicle isn't armored by how it reacts to an

IED, just a thought.

[Guest James Of Tucson]

On Sep 9, 9:58 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> James Of Tucson wrote:

> > On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

>

> >> You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to

> >> drop an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know

> >> that we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

>

> > "WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

> > disposition and protocols of the air force,

> > is a potential weapon.

>

> > Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

> > dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

> > armor.

> > Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

> > by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

>

> > Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

> > war. It's ridiculous.

>

> Who is the "enemy" in Iraq?

>

> Shiite Triba A

> Shiite Tribe B

> Sunni Triba A

> Sunni Tribe B

> Shiite Religious Fanatic

> Sunni Religious Fanatic

> The Iraqi National Police

> Al-Qaeda of Iraq

>

> Who?

>

> Or all of them our enemy?

 

Nobody except the chain of command and the crews should know anything

specific about nukes, where they are located, how and when they are

being transported, etc.

 

It's certainly no topic for the mass media.

[Guest Bruno Muscarelli]

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1189395799.290553.152470@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 9, 9:58 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > James Of Tucson wrote:

> > > On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

> >

> > >> You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to

> > >> drop an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know

> > >> that we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

> >

> > > "WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

> > > disposition and protocols of the air force,

> > > is a potential weapon.

> >

> > > Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

> > > dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

> > > armor.

> > > Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

> > > by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

> >

> > > Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

> > > war. It's ridiculous.

> >

> > Who is the "enemy" in Iraq?

> >

> > Shiite Triba A

> > Shiite Tribe B

> > Sunni Triba A

> > Sunni Tribe B

> > Shiite Religious Fanatic

> > Sunni Religious Fanatic

> > The Iraqi National Police

> > Al-Qaeda of Iraq

> >

> > Who?

> >

> > Or all of them our enemy?

>

> Nobody except the chain of command and the crews should know anything

> specific about nukes, where they are located, how and when they are

> being transported, etc.

>

> It's certainly no topic for the mass media.

 

I agree.

[Guest z]

On Sep 9, 12:58 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> James Of Tucson wrote:

> > On Sep 7, 8:38 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

>

> >> You mean, it's dangerous knowledge that the AF is not prepared to

> >> drop an armed nuke on US soil without preparing? or did you not know

> >> that we actually have B-52s in Iraq and places like that right now?

>

> > "WE" shouldn't know the details. ANY specific knowledge about the

> > disposition and protocols of the air force,

> > is a potential weapon.

>

> > Hell, we shouldn't even know that the airport road in Baghdad is

> > dangerous, that Humvees are poorly armored, that soldiers lack body

> > armor.

> > Yet that information gets broadcast daily, and it does indeed get used

> > by the enemy as a weapon, possibly as their most effective weapon.

>

> > Entirely too much intelligence is being spewed, during this whole

> > war. It's ridiculous.

>

> Who is the "enemy" in Iraq?

>

> Shiite Triba A

> Shiite Tribe B

> Sunni Triba A

> Sunni Tribe B

> Shiite Religious Fanatic

> Sunni Religious Fanatic

> The Iraqi National Police

> Al-Qaeda of Iraq

>

> Who?

>

> Or all of them our enemy?

 

You misunderstand. Those are all the adversaries in the war. But the

targets of the war are the Democrats. And with that point of view,

it's not going all that badly for the Terror President.

[Guest z]

On Sep 9, 11:43 pm, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nobody except the chain of command and the crews should know anything

> specific about nukes, where they are located, how and when they are

> being transported, etc.

>

> It's certainly no topic for the mass media.

 

I would trust any 10 randoms off the street, including Sesame Street,

with such knowledge before I'd trust the current occupation of the

white house.