For what it is worth

[_JS]

Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program.

Pakistan started working on their nuclear program in 1972.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program

And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.

[Amianthus]

And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.

Well, since BARC was originaly started as civilian power generation - and the Indians even signed agreements to this - it's not likely that Pakistan was aware of it until they exploded their first test weapon.

Unless you're implying that Indians are incapable of keeping secrets?

Besides, the Germans were selling the Pakistanies illegal supplies for their nuclear program. And the research actually started in the mid-60s in Pakistan, though not officially. It's unknown when the Indians actually broke their agreements and started weapons research.

[_JS]

And when did they discover that India was working on theirs? BARC was begun in 1957.

Well, since BARC was originaly started as civilian power generation - and the Indians even signed agreements to this - it's not likely that Pakistan was aware of it until they exploded their first test weapon.

Unless you're implying that Indians are incapable of keeping secrets?

Besides, the Germans were selling the Pakistanies illegal supplies for their nuclear program. And the research actually started in the mid-60s in Pakistan, though not officially. It's unknown when the Indians actually broke their agreements and started weapons research.

Yes, I'm implying that Indians cannot keep secrets. <eyeroll>

Everything I have read indicates that Pakistan's program did not gain traction until India exploded their bomb in 1974. That includes a couple of excellent programs on AQ Khan and on Indian/Pakistani relations.

What is certain is that India exploded their first atomic weapon twenty-four years prior to Pakistan's first atomic weapons test. Both states have joined North Korea and Israel and non-major powers to have nuclear weapons.

[Amianthus]

Everything I have read indicates that Pakistan's program did not gain traction until India exploded their bomb in 1974. That includes a couple of excellent programs on AQ Khan and on Indian/Pakistani relations.

Yeah, but Pakistan had "already tested plans" from China which India did not. Testing was not as much of an issue for Pakistan. It's even possible that China did some of Pakistan's testing for them.

And the testing for true thermonuclear weapons (triple-bang weapons with fission-fusion-fission cycles) for both countries was done nearly simultaneously (the "24 years later" that you mention). India's 1974 test was just boosted fission, with no fusion component.

[_JS]

From what I've seen, much of the Pakistan-China connection was exaggerated, primarily by the United States. At one time there was even a working theory that China was the chief nation responsible for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, but that was simply an underestimation of the abilities of Khan and any small nation to develop such a program without it being dominated by another major nuclear power. (Plus the fact that US intelligence had completely, or purposefully bungled the Khan assignment).

Regardless, to come back from way out on a tangent. And I will concede for sure that Ami may well be right and let's say Pakistan started exploring this option early on. Hell, there are far more Indians than Pakistanis and their war began in '48.

What does it matter if Pakistan began the process before India? I'm not really sure I see that as being a "better" situation. Let's not forget that there are Hindu extremists as well (and Sikh extremists).

So let's say India created theirs to counter Pakistan and China, which they've had border conflicts with many times (though I still think the Pakistan part doesn't jive with history, we can assume it for now). How does that change the fundamental issue at hand?

[Amianthus]

So let's say India created theirs to counter Pakistan and China, which they've had border conflicts with many times (though I still think the Pakistan part doesn't jive with history, we can assume it for now). How does that change the fundamental issue at hand?

That religious extremists will attempt to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Don't think it changes it at all.

[sirs]

Now, care to answer mine?, since I couldn't help notice how it wasn't:   What is the price to be paid for not taking the militant Islamic threat seriously??  What is the price to be paid for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses?  What is the price to be paid in lives, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if we doom ourselves to repeat history?    I'm asking a perfectly fair question myself.  Pretend I'm right for a moment

I think there is a difference in minimizing the threat and looking at it realistically. We should not minimize the threat of militant Islamic groups, certainly. I believe I answered this earlier as no one wishes a repeat of any of the tragic bombings that we've seen.

Yet, you answer by precisely minimizing the threat.  I am looking at this realistically, and practically, and most notably, historically.  I suggested you pretend "I'm right" on this one to try answering the question, yet you managed to do the same thing, and never did even attempt to qualify the price.  You say we should not minimize the "threat of militant Islamic groups", yet completely avoid the point I, and Domer were making......minimizing that threat.  Could you try one more time to answer my question?

NO, Or more accurately, highly unlikely, since we're not targeting "Islam"

That is not what the author of this article suggests.

That is precisely what the author suggests, the targeting of MILITANT Islam, the targeting of those elements of Islam that have mutated the message of the Koran to justify the slaughter of any and all who are not Muslim, and/or who chose not to be sujugated by it.  Or perhaps I'm not reading in proper perspective.  Where specifically does the author indicate our need to target the religion of Islam, in general, and not those elements that have hijacked the religion for their purposes?

[_JS]

Yet, you answer by precisely minimizing the threat.  I am looking at this realistically, and practically, and most notably, historically.  I suggested you pretend "I'm right" on this one to try answering the question, yet you managed to do the same thing, and never did even attempt to qualify the price.  You say we should not minimize the "threat of militant Islamic groups", yet completely avoid the point I, and Domer were making......minimizing that threat.  Could you try one more time to answer my question?

You and Domer are looking at this "historically" and "practically" by agreeing to a comparison of Militant Islam to Nazism and Stalinism? No. I completely disagree with that assessment. Moreover, you cannot simply consider my disagreement with that odd view as being "minimalizing."

If you and Domer wish to prove that viewing Militant Islam in terms of Nazism and Stalinism is both "practical" and "historical" then you will both have to provide persuasive proof to that end. Simply characterising me as dangerously minimizing the threat is avoiding the burden to demonstrate how your view is possibly close to realistic.

That is precisely what the author suggests, the targeting of MILITANT Islam, the targeting of those elements of Islam that have mutated the message of the Koran to justify the slaughter of any and all who are not Muslim, and/or who chose not to be sujugated by it.  Or perhaps I'm not reading in proper perspective.  Where specifically does the author indicate our need to target the religion of Islam, in general, and not those elements that have hijacked the religion for their purposes?

No, you are incorrect. The author makes very little remarks about targeting militant Islam, or Islam at all. He makes specific remarks about targeting people he claims are dangerous lefitsts. It is that stance which you seem to find agreeable.

[gipper]

You're starting to piss me off in a major way, choirboy. At no time, ever, have I drawn a historical parallel between Soviet Communism or Nazism and the radical Islamic fundamentalism that bedevils us today. What I am saying in very clear terms is that the golobal threat of Islamic radicals is significant and simply cannot be brushed aside. In my conception, this palpable threat is a novel one; in the farther reaches of its development -- so many exploded cities later -- it is conceivable that its successes, if any, could draw in enough followers to give a state's or states' face(s) to the movement.

[Plane]

Gipper may not want to compare the absolutists of the past with those of the present , perhaps he doesn't think it a usefull comparison.

We may need a scorecard to keep up with who is takeing what position.

I think the comparison is fair  , although it is not hard to show a long list of differences , the short list of simularitys include things that are important .


Al Queda starts with a small circle of militants , adresses an aggrieved and insulted population , promises the world .

Is there no pattern there?

[sirs]

You and Domer are looking at this "historically" and "practically" by agreeing to a comparison of Militant Islam to Nazism and Stalinism? No. I completely disagree with that assessment. Moreover, you cannot simply consider my disagreement with that odd view as being "minimalizing."

Yes, I absolutely can.  when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat.  The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat.  So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.

If you and Domer wish to prove that viewing Militant Islam in terms of Nazism and Stalinism is both "practical" and "historical" then you will both have to provide persuasive proof to that end. Simply characterising me as dangerously minimizing the threat is avoiding the burden to demonstrate how your view is possibly close to realistic.

Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions.  Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world.  They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die.  Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan.  This is REAL.  This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing.  No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.

The author makes very little remarks about targeting militant Islam, or Islam at all. He makes specific remarks about targeting people he claims are dangerous lefitsts. It is that stance which you seem to find agreeable.

Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely.  And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic.  Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused.  The author isn't, and neither have I

[_JS]

You're starting to piss me off in a major way, choirboy. At no time, ever, have I drawn a historical parallel between Soviet Communism or Nazism and the radical Islamic fundamentalism that bedevils us today. What I am saying in very clear terms is that the golobal threat of Islamic radicals is significant and simply cannot be brushed aside. In my conception, this palpable threat is a novel one; in the farther reaches of its development -- so many exploded cities later -- it is conceivable that its successes, if any, could draw in enough followers to give a state's or states' face(s) to the movement.

Well, heathen, you agreed with Sirs and that is something he stated (and has stated) before. I apologise for the guilt by association.

The problem is that what happened on 9/11 is not the same as what happened on July 7. Yes, you may loosely define it as Militant Islam, but it was not likely an Al-Qaeda attack. My point is that it is very easy to go overboard with just how "successful" these Islamists really are. I think we agree Domer, that a reasonable response is appropriate, but dut surely it is not to the extent of suspending due process or torture.

[_JS]

Yes, I absolutely can.  when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat.  The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat.  So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.

How? Persuade me that Militant Islam is a "grave threat to our liberties and way of life." I'm not closed-minded Sirs. I'll listen to a logically presented argument.

Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions.  Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world.  They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die.  Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan.  This is REAL.  This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing.  No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.

People and groups have thought similar things for years. They believe they have God on their side? So what? That just includes them with 75% of the other nutcases out there. They hate the United States? Again, that isn't exactly an uncommon view. I never said this wasn't real. I was here on 9/11. Yet, what you need to understand is that terrorism has been here far longer than 9/11 and far longer than the USS Cole or the embassy attacks. In many ways we simply joined the rest of the world on an extremely tragic day.

So how is this different?

Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely.  And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic.  Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused.  The author isn't, and neither have I

Right...

[sirs]

Yes, I absolutely can.  when one takes a threat that I perceive as a grave threat to our liberties and way of life, and you turn around and claim how it just ain't so, is by definition minimizing the threat.  The fact you refuse to answer my question, in what price do we pay for doing just that, reinfornces how you are indeed minimizing the threat.  So don't keep referring to the sky is blue, and tell me later you really said the sky was green.

How? Persuade me that Militant Islam is a "grave threat to our liberties and way of life." I'm not closed-minded Sirs. I'll listen to a logically presented argument.

You have a leader, like Usama, and his minions all across the globe listening to his words, as if he's the Muslim version of Jesus Christ.  You have Usama and his generals making it public record as to the goals of their agenda, a literal new caliphate.  Under this new world order, members are to either be Islam, be subjugated to Islam, or die.  You have these same leaders and many of their followers proclaiming the U.S. as the Great Satan.  Allah is their justification for killing.  And this mentality appears to be growing thru-out the muslim world, noted by the overt lack of any widespread condemnation by moderate Muslims and those countries run by supposed moderate muslims.  You have made many attempts to rationalize why they really can't, which kind of validates my position all the more.  You have muslim populations growing thru-out the world (What's the % now in France?)  So yea, we won't be able to stop every single terrorist that straps a bomb to their back and blows up a busload of children.  But that # willing to perform such acts are growing.  And when they can start doing it with WMD strapped to their backs, then a new chapter will begin.  The grave threat is to our liberties (being made to be subjugated to Islam) and our way of life (death), IF we don't take this threat seriously, as you apparently are doing

Close to realisitic is taking the leaders of such a movement at their word, and more so, their actions.  Usama and his general have been on record indicating thier ultimate ideal of a Muslim led world.  They have made it painfully clear how they'd run such a world.....convert, be subjugated, or die.  Their followers believe to have Allah on their side, in bringing this to fruition, and have no problem blowing children up, in the name of Allah, with the U.S. as the great satan.  This is REAL.  This is what they have said, this is what they have been doing.  No amount of sticking your head in the sand is going to make that go away.

People and groups have thought similar things for years. They believe they have God on their side? So what?

SO WHAT??  So what is that they actually have a growing following.  So what is they actually have the belief that Allah will support their efforts.  So what is that there's no way of placating or "talking" this mindset out, if it's already made up.  So what is precisely the same mindset Chamberlain likely had as Hitler built up his NWO agenda from scrap. 

Yet, what you need to understand is that terrorism has been here far longer than 9/11 and far longer than the USS Cole or the embassy attacks. In many ways we simply joined the rest of the world on an extremely tragic day.  So how is this different?

Well....d'uh it's been here longer than 911.  The point is this threat is a GROWING threat.  The point is we are the Great Satan.  The point is the threat you keep wishing to minimize

Leftists who want to derail our efforts at taking out the threat of militant Islam, absolutely.  And "targeting" in that realm is simply highlighting precisely that tactic.  Just incase you were getting terrorists and leftists confused.  The author isn't, and neither have I

Right...

Oh, so now I'm lying?  Ok

[_JS]

You have a leader, like Usama, and his minions all across the globe listening to his words, as if he's the Muslim version of Jesus Christ.  You have Usama and his generals making it public record as to the goals of their agenda, a literal new caliphate.  Under this new world order, members are to either be Islam, be subjugated to Islam, or die.  You have these same leaders and many of their followers proclaiming the U.S. as the Great Satan.  Allah is their justification for killing.  And this mentality appears to be growing thru-out the muslim world, noted by the overt lack of any widespread condemnation by moderate Muslims and those countries run by supposed moderate muslims.  You have made many attempts to rationalize why they really can't, which kind of validates my position all the more.  You have muslim populations growing thru-out the world (What's the % now in France?)  So yea, we won't be able to stop every single terrorist that straps a bomb to their back and blows up a busload of children.  But that # willing to perform such acts are growing.  And when they can start doing it with WMD strapped to their backs, then a new chapter will begin.  The grave threat is to our liberties (being made to be subjugated to Islam) and our way of life (death), IF we don't take this threat seriously, as you apparently are doing

OK, there seems to be something to work with here. Let's separate the facts from the rhetoric. Like any discussion on implementing any policy, we should have more than just rhetoric, but honest fact on which to base decisions.

1. Who views Osama bin Laden in a messianic context? How many such people hold this view?

2. What evidence do you have that Al-Qaeda's goal is some sort of new Caliphate? What percentage of Muslims would like to see this new Caliphate?

3. You say this mentality seems to be growing thru-out the muslim world, yet you offer no proof other than lack of condemnation, which is not evidence of a growing extremist view. What percentages followed this extremist Al-Qaeda held convert-or-die view in 1980, 1990, 2000, and today? Is it growing? Or not?

4. Growing Muslim populations do not prove anything related to your point and neither do the demographics of France. I think we can agree that these statements are irrelevant.

5. Is their evidence of Islamist terrorists using WMD in an attack?

SO WHAT??  So what is that they actually have a growing following.  So what is they actually have the belief that Allah will support their efforts.  So what is that there's no way of placating or "talking" this mindset out, if it's already made up.  So what is precisely the same mindset Chamberlain likely had as Hitler built up his NWO agenda from scrap.

There are Americans who are convinced that we have God on our side as well. That does not prevent us from using diplomacy with other nations.

You don't know enough about Chamberlain and the Munich accords to understand them in their own historical context, let alone to apply them elsewhere. This is standard fare to demonise Chamberlain and then apply it as a universal law to diplomacy.

Oh, so now I'm lying?  Ok

I never said you were lying. I just find it interesting that you agree with the authors nastiness towards opposing opinions.