Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → USS Cole bomber escapes
USS Cole bomber escapes
2006-02-05, 6:19 AM #1
Actually, the CNN website is reporting that the "mastermind" behind the attack has escaped prison in Yemen. They aren't shownig any news articles about it yet, though. Anybody know anything?
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2006-02-05, 9:37 AM #2
Supposedly some prisoners and their contacts on the outside were digging a 400 ft. tunnel under the prison. Once it was completed, twenty Al-Qaeda suspects and the mastermind escaped from the Yemeni facility.
2006-02-05, 10:47 AM #3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683520.stm
BAM!
2006-02-05, 10:48 AM #4
Well ****, looks like things are really getting going. This is bad mojo unless they catch him (them) and even then...
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-05, 10:49 AM #5
WW3 ANYONE?

2:1 on it involving the middles east and a nuclear bomb....
2006-02-05, 10:57 AM #6
I thought those digging tactics only worked on comics... Dang.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2006-02-05, 11:08 AM #7
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
WW3 ANYONE?

2:1 on it involving the middles east and a nuclear bomb....


Why does everyone think nukes are so effective?

Because they aren't, anymore. They aren't a deterrent and they just ruin things.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-05, 11:10 AM #8
There's something I always wondered about suicide bombers. Do they really know what they're doing? The suicide bombings are always planned by someone else, but they're never executed by the higher-ups. If the bombers really believe that you get into heaven by killing yourself, do they ever wonder why Bin Laden doesn't try to get into heaven?

Maybe this "sentience" thing is limited to first-world nations.
2006-02-05, 11:12 AM #9
Originally posted by Spook:
Why does everyone think nukes are so effective?
...because they are the most destructive weapons we have? Seems pretty effective at its intended purpose to me. Thermonuclear weapons are city busters, not precision weapons. Neutron weapons, which are based on similar technology, shred apart organic matter while leaving most target installations intact and largely habitable.

Very, very effective. The only reason they aren't used is because nobody wants to be the target of one.
2006-02-05, 11:13 AM #10
Originally posted by Jon`C:
There's something I always wondered about suicide bombers. Do they really know what they're doing? The suicide bombings are always planned by someone else, but they're never executed by the higher-ups. If the bombers really believe that you get into heaven by killing yourself, do they ever wonder why Bin Laden doesn't try to get into heaven?


Because he's a selfless hero who stays behind in order to help other people. Like someone who stays in a prison camp to help other people escape. Oh Bin Laden, you wonderful person. :p
2006-02-05, 11:28 AM #11
Originally posted by Jon`C:
If the bombers really believe that you get into heaven by killing yourself, do they ever wonder why Bin Laden doesn't try to get into heaven?


Islam is all about the submission to the will of Allah. Dying in defense of Islam is one of the most submissive act one can perform, ensuring that you'll get into Heaven. People like Bin Laden convince others that, when they kill themselves in an attack on the Western world, they die in the defense of Islam.

Not saying it's an inane, idiotic, and hypocritical thing to do. Just explaining.
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2006-02-05, 11:36 AM #12
Originally posted by Wolfy:
People like Bin Laden convince others that, when they kill themselves in an attack on the Western world, they die in the defense of Islam.

Not saying it's an inane, idiotic, and hypocritical thing to do. Just explaining.
I know their logic. I'm asking if the people who actually do it ever wonder why people like Bin Laden never do it themselves. If killing yourself to kill infidels is Allah's will, why is Bin Laden still alive?
2006-02-05, 11:41 AM #13
This makes me sad.

:gbk:
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
2006-02-05, 11:43 AM #14
Originally posted by JDKNITE188:
Supposedly some prisoners and their contacts on the outside were digging a 400 ft. tunnel under the prison. Once it was completed, twenty Al-Qaeda suspects and the mastermind escaped from the Yemeni facility.


They've really gotta stop showing "The Shawshank Redemption" in prisons...
The top ten times in history when using the "F" word
was appropriate.....
10) "What the *&%# was that?" -Mayor of Hiroshima - August 1945
9) "Where did all these *&%#ing Indians come from?" - Custer 1877
8) "Any *&%#ing idiot could understand that." - Einstein 1938
7) "It does SO *&%#ing look like her!" - Picasso 1926
6) "How the *&%# did you work that out?" - Pythagoras 126 BC
5) "You want WHAT on the *&%#ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo 1566
4) "I don't suppose it's gonna *&%#ing rain." - Joan of Arc 1434
3) "Scattered *&%#ing showers...my a$$!" - Noah 2114 BC
2) "I need this parade like I need a *&%#ing hole in my head!" -
JFK 1963
1) "Aw c'mon, who the *&%# is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton 1997
2006-02-05, 11:53 AM #15
Prison Break anyone?
2006-02-05, 11:56 AM #16
Originally posted by Spook:
Why does everyone think nukes are so effective?

Because they aren't, anymore. They aren't a deterrent and they just ruin things.


That, and after so many cheesy spy movies, you can't make serious demands with them anymore.
nope.
2006-02-05, 12:19 PM #17
Originally posted by Jon`C:
...because they are the most destructive weapons we have? Seems pretty effective at its intended purpose to me. Thermonuclear weapons are city busters, not precision weapons. Neutron weapons, which are based on similar technology, shred apart organic matter while leaving most target installations intact and largely habitable.

Very, very effective. The only reason they aren't used is because nobody wants to be the target of one.


The problem is, while they are effective at blowing **** up, they aren't as effective in their past role, deterring conflict.

Know why? Exactly what you are talking about, they don't CARE if they are the target of one, in fact, few things would make them happier.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-05, 12:33 PM #18
Originally posted by Spook:
Exactly what you are talking about, they don't CARE if they are the target of one, in fact, few things would make them happier.
Yes, which is called the "rogue nation" problem. Iran is one of those rogue nations.

The beautiful thing about WMDs, though: the Middle East will be a glass crater 17 minutes after an Arabic state employs a nuclear weapon against a nation in the anglosphere. First World nations don't just want to avoid nuclear weapons from being used on them, they want to avoid having nuclear weapons used anywhere near them.

And make no mistake: the first world technology is worlds beyond the technology of the Arabic world. They would most likely have to carry a briefcase nuke into a major population center, while we can liberally (and quickly) blanket-nuke them from the other side of the planet. Our soldiers are reusable. Theirs aren't.
2006-02-05, 12:37 PM #19
That must have been one miserably-guarded prison. How the hell could they have let so many people escape?
Historians are the most powerful and dangerous members of any society. They must be watched carefully... They can spoil everything. - Nikita Khrushchev.
Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god. - Jean Rostand.
2006-02-05, 1:05 PM #20
I wouldn't be surprised if they were let out by guards themselves. al-Qaeda sympathasizers.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2006-02-05, 2:11 PM #21
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Yes, which is called the "rogue nation" problem. Iran is one of those rogue nations.

The beautiful thing about WMDs, though: the Middle East will be a glass crater 17 minutes after an Arabic state employs a nuclear weapon against a nation in the anglosphere. First World nations don't just want to avoid nuclear weapons from being used on them, they want to avoid having nuclear weapons used anywhere near them.

And make no mistake: the first world technology is worlds beyond the technology of the Arabic world. They would most likely have to carry a briefcase nuke into a major population center, while we can liberally (and quickly) blanket-nuke them from the other side of the planet. Our soldiers are reusable. Theirs aren't.


I think that is part of the problem though. They bring a nuke in and blow us up, who are we going to nuke? Their home coutnry, the government of which might not even support them?
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-05, 3:11 PM #22
I'm going to disagree with the whole "nuclear weapons are the most powerful we have." We do have kinetic weapon systems, and they do just as much damage without the radiation...
omnia mea mecum porto
2006-02-05, 3:53 PM #23
Originally posted by JediGandalf:
I wouldn't be surprised if they were let out by guards themselves. al-Qaeda sympathasizers.


That's what I was thinking too.

The morons.
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2006-02-05, 7:53 PM #24
I agree. If only Iran, SYria, and N Korea werent such friggin morons
This is retarded, and I mean drooling at the mouth
2006-02-06, 12:27 PM #25
Originally posted by Roach:
I'm going to disagree with the whole "nuclear weapons are the most powerful we have." We do have kinetic weapon systems, and they do just as much damage without the radiation...


Bullets? Bombs? Kinetic=motion yes?
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-06, 12:48 PM #26
Kinetic refering to the damage being done by kinetic energy through impact, like with bullets. Some of the proposed rail gun ideas involve projectiles transfering ridiculous amounts of Kinetic Energy through impact.
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....
2006-02-06, 1:08 PM #27
[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]Kinetic refering to the damage being done by kinetic energy through impact, like with bullets. Some of the proposed rail gun ideas involve projectiles transfering ridiculous amounts of Kinetic Energy through impact.[/QUOTE]Those are still not going to have the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

I don't care what anybody says about this. You can fire every gun in the US at a city and it's still not going to do as much damage as a single missile.
2006-02-06, 1:18 PM #28
True that, the energy contained in chemical bonds is nothing compared to the bonds in a nucleus.
2006-02-06, 1:26 PM #29
Originally posted by Hebedee:
True that, the energy contained in chemical bonds is nothing compared to the bonds in a nucleus.
Yes. It's orders of magnitude greater, and all of the energy released by a nuclear weapon is released in destructive forms (heat, light, 'sound' - shockwave pulse, long-term radiation and neutron pulse). Bullets tend to pass through things.

It really is the difference between chipping away at a rock with a hammer or blowing it up with TNT.
2006-02-06, 3:04 PM #30
Jon'C: Why do soldiers go off to die while their generals remain safe? If it was about dying, rather than fighting a war, al Qaeda would have ended it Heaven's Gate style decades ago.
2006-02-06, 3:12 PM #31
Originally posted by Ictus:
Jon'C: Why do soldiers go off to die while their generals remain safe? If it was about dying, rather than fighting a war, al Qaeda would have ended it Heaven's Gate style decades ago.


No, for the organization it is about fighting a war. For individuals it is about death.

That is precisely what makes them so hard to fight.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-02-06, 4:58 PM #32
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Those are still not going to have the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

I don't care what anybody says about this. You can fire every gun in the US at a city and it's still not going to do as much damage as a single missile.

I never said anything about a gun... Put a 2,000lbs lead weight in a camera bay of an SR-71. They already have the guidance systems to show where the weight needs to be released in order to hit a city. It will do the same damage as a multi-kiloton nuclear device without the radiation.
omnia mea mecum porto
2006-02-06, 6:49 PM #33
I'm not following that. Somebody explain how a 2000 lb hunk of lead = nuclear device. I haven't heard of this before.
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2006-02-06, 6:52 PM #34
Originally posted by Roach:
I never said anything about a gun... Put a 2,000lbs lead weight in a camera bay of an SR-71. They already have the guidance systems to show where the weight needs to be released in order to hit a city. It will do the same damage as a multi-kiloton nuclear device without the radiation.



What!?! You'e kidding right?


Originally posted by Jon`C:
Those are still not going to have the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

I don't care what anybody says about this. You can fire every gun in the US at a city and it's still not going to do as much damage as a single missile.



It depends on the missile. A modern artillery barrage is going to be way more powerful than the average air to ground missile. If, however, you or referring to a nuclear missile, then yes, by and large.
2006-02-06, 7:00 PM #35
Originally posted by Chewbubba:
I'm not following that. Somebody explain how a 2000 lb hunk of lead = nuclear device. I haven't heard of this before.

You accelerate the bird to Mach 3+ speeds and release the weight. The weight will act like a meteorite.
omnia mea mecum porto
2006-02-06, 7:01 PM #36
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
What!?! You'e kidding right?

Does it look like I'm kidding?
omnia mea mecum porto

↑ Up to the top!