Article

2005-03-30 Terror Networks & Islam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-03-30 00:00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 He gets some points for the clever title, though.

Posted by someone 2005-03-30 12:23:51 AM|| 2005-03-30 12:23:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 ROFL!

Better imagined American "sold outs" than Muslim "subhuman pets".

Arab society has some serious catching up to do with reality. This has been true for centuries. This time is different, however, as the world won't just pass them by - there's not enough room anymore and they've bred some killer thugs and several outposts of hate which just can't seem to keep their hands to themselves. They get the first free shot - then they're toast. The clash has begun and they are losing every confrontation where there is a will for freedom and sanity.

Figure it out or bite the dust, Muzzies. There's a New World dawning, alright, but it's not the barbaric Caliphate and it's not the TranziSocioFascistMoonbat OWG, either. It's something else...

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 12:29:04 AM|| 2005-03-30 12:29:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 It's something else...

Yea, but what is it? ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2005-03-30 12:35:11 AM|| 2005-03-30 12:35:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Here are some BB wallpapers from a French site:
-1- -2- -3- -4-

And a weird collection of animated Boops and another page of Boopies here... drop one into your next HTML-formatted email, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 12:46:46 AM|| 2005-03-30 12:46:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Am I to assume that your nym, twobyfour, is to be taken literally / used liberally, then?
Lol! ;-)

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 12:48:08 AM|| 2005-03-30 12:48:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 This dilhole, Mohammad Al Khalil doesn't get it. These are Christians who are fed up of playing Dhimmi. Leabanon is Christian, Muslim and my goodness secular. The craptards equate arab as allenist, wrong answer.

The "arabs" need to get their heads out of their misogynist rectal openings and wake up. Wake up or die.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-03-30 1:07:52 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-03-30 1:07:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 .com, like spare the rod and spoil the kids?
Sort of. ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2005-03-30 1:13:45 AM|| 2005-03-30 1:13:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Democracy, whiskey, sexy" You are either for it or you are against it. Show your colors.

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2005-03-30 1:24:34 AM|| 2005-03-30 1:24:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 2x4 -- Lol! I didn't fill in the gap after the ellipsis because I think it will be many things. A smorgasbord of variations on the theme of democracy - some flavors featuring freedom, some featuring the same old shit in brand new puppets, er, bottles. Y'know, some might really get it and do it up right - and we might take notes if they do it better; think effective curbs on judicial activism, for example, lol. Some will do the minimum and keep trying to pull strings for the usual reasons. Some will offer only window dressing - until the lampposts come into play. Some will try to merge into OWG - likely only yielding a harder fall when their moronic shopworn DOA socialism fails, yet again. Sigh.

But I do believe something new is dawning and that once rolling, it won't stop until it has invaded everywhere in some degree. I don't see an end to strife, but I do see a helluvalot less when Shari'a is buried. Hell, it would be nice just to have to deal with the 7 deadly sins, without female castration, stoning, beheadings, Arab News alternate realities cum total fabrication, eternal denial and blame, and the latest PakiWaki faction grenade throw competition. Yeah, I even see an end to that, lol! Might be a very large smokin' hole - might be several smaller smokin' holes, er, countries...

CL - color me optimistic, lol!

Foghorn Leghorn said it best, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 1:35:05 AM|| 2005-03-30 1:35:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I didn't fill in the gap after the ellipsis because I think it will be many things

I know you meant that, .com, I just can't help being myself. ;-)

I am somewhere between optimist and pessimist. I see good signs. But some interpret them that the battle is won. Far from it. When dubya were talking about it to last a generation, he was either seeing far or someone gave him a good overview of what to expect. It is still in the early phase. There would be, undoubtedly, setbacks. I can see one in making--Europe.

But we have to win, at some point. We don't have any choice. Tie would be just postponing the inevitable and it is a luxury we can't afford.

We have fine military. In fact, the best. But we must not forget that the battle is fought on the ideological front as well. In many ways, this may be the more important element.

Posted by twobyfour 2005-03-30 2:10:13 AM|| 2005-03-30 2:10:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Here are some examples that Daniel Pipes gathered for our convenient glimpse:

New York City: An investigation by the New York Daily News in 2003 found that books used in the city's Muslim schools "are rife with inaccuracies, sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians, and triumphalist declarations of Islam's supremacy.

Los Angeles: The Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation donated 300 Korans (titled The Meaning of the Holy Quran) to the city school district in 2001 that within months had to be pulled from school libraries because of its antisemitic commentaries. One footnote reads: "The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah was enclosed in their hearts.Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy.

Ajax, Ontario, 50 kilometers east of Toronto: The Institute of Islamic Learning is a Canadian emulation of the extremist Deobandi madrassahs of Pakistan. It focuses exclusively on religious topics, has students memorize the Koran, demands total segregation from the Canadian milieu, and requires complete gender separation. Former students complained about the school's cult-like devotion to its head, Abdul Majid Khan, and complained that it "twisted religion and used it to its own benefit".

Then there are four leading Islamic schools in the Washington, D.C., area:

The Muslim Community School in Potomac, Maryland, imbues in its students a sense of alienation from their own country. Seventh-grader Miriam told a Washington Post reporter in 2001, "Being American is just being born in this country." Eighth-grader Ibrahim announced that "Being an American means nothing to me.

A textbook used at the Islamic Saudi Academy of Alexandria, Virginia, in 2004, authored and published by the Saudi Ministry of Education, teaches first graders that "all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews [and] Christians." An ISA class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was recently indicted for plotting to assassinate President Bush.

The U.S. government revoked the visas in 2004 of sixteen people affiliated with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, of Fairfax, Virginia. In the words of the Washington Post, "That decision followed accusations that the institute, a satellite campus of al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, was promoting a brand of Islam that critics say is intolerant of other strains of the religion as well as Christianity and Judaism." In addition, the IIASA is under investigation for ties to terrorism.

The Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences of Ashburn, Virginia, referred to as a "purported" educational institution in an affidavit justifying a raid on the school, had its financial records seized in 2002 on suspicions of links to terrorism.

Nor are schools the exception among Islamic institutions in North America. A recent study by Freedom House found a parallel problem of venomous anti-Jewish and anti-Christian materials in U.S. mosques. The most prominent American Muslim organizations, especially the Council on American-Islamic Relations, spew anti-Semitism and host a neo-Nazi. The same applies in Canada, where the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, publicly endorsed the murder of all Israelis over the age of eighteen.

Posted by twobyfour 2005-03-30 2:23:17 AM|| 2005-03-30 2:23:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 In which Mohammad Al Khalil, lecturer, Arabic Studies, Zayed University, Dubai, complains that the involvement of comely young women in Lebanonâs demonstrations will offend the sensibilities of the Arab world:..

Time to evolve, you jerks.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-30 3:31:22 AM|| 2005-03-30 3:31:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 'All is process.' Heraclitus 500 BC

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-30 3:39:12 AM|| 2005-03-30 3:39:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 2x4 - Sigh.

[fantasy rant]
Of course the day approaches when all of that crap grinds to a halt. When, you ask? Heh. When the Mad Mullahs and the House of Saud have no oil money. All of the grief comes down to money. It's hard to be a jihadi when you don't get travel expenses and cash for weaponry and rent-a-fools... If you have to work to eat, things change. The glamor goes *poof*. Most of the hardcore twits are pure mercenaries. Most of the fodder are fools who see some glamorous end or fame. No money, no BS textbooks and mercenary imams or teachers. No pamphlets or slick 4-color posters or cash to import Jooo-hating speakers and bogus conventions or festivals. It all dries up. The charities are all that will be left - and without Govts to enable and assist them with banks and paperwork and passports - they are isolated and can be picked off and shut down.

I believe the client states, such as PakiWakiLand would see a dramatic change, as well - a drop in the status of the stupid. Saudi money has to be flowing in to support so many otherwise unemployed factions, lol! Somebody has to be paying and feeding and housing and clothing and arming them. Prolly the Saudi Assholes. We'd see a drop in violence in S Thailand, the Filipines, in Africa, hell - it's hard to imagine anyplace where Islam is playing its usual aggressive hand that would not feel a loss of funding - with the ramifications mentioned above.

There will soon come a point when the MM's go down - I'd guess somewhere in the 4thQ of 05 or 1stQ of 06. They have set the stage for their own demise - uniting determination both from without and within. Their obsession with nukes is, IMHO, a gift from The Gods, lol! Morons!

The House of Saud is the big moneybags behind Wahhabism, of course, and they have no more claim to the oil sands on the Eastern shore of The Gulf than I do. I proposed taking them away about 15 months ago. It was a "joke" that circulated for awhile, but I was then, and still am, dead serious. We could do it without breaking a sweat and create flypaper where it belongs - in the heart of the darkness. I'd like to remove it from Iraq's back now anyway - they've earned their shot at the freedom game. The Republic of Eastern Arabia has a nice ring to it. Also, picture the reactions of the remainder of the GCC... think Al Jizz would have free rein in Qatar or that Sheikh Yer Booty in the UAE would continue to invite the displace and dysfunctional moonbats of the West? Nah, I'm thinking it would kill a whole shitload of bad actors in one swell foop, like buckshot into a flock of flying rats, and leave the bystanders shakin' in their curly-toed slippers.

In less than a year, all manner of shit would screech to a halt. Sure, lotsa baying and screaming and such, but fuck 'em. I don't feel the need to apologize for doing what has needed to be done since (at least) 1973 when the Saudis declared war on the US - with the means at their disposal: economically and diplomatically. We're the only ones who seem to be unaware of that fact.

It would be nasty, but so what? It's already nasty - and until the swamp is drained, there will be nasties coming out of it.

So many things would fall out of the trees, it would be, um, interesting, no?

Wouldn't hurt Western economies, either... security for the oil fields and routes would have a nice effect on the price of oil, I'd wager.

Imagine China's frantic response when the Gulf is no longer a trade battlefield against us... imagine the collapse of their paper-thin economy. What to do with the billions? Lol! Lordy, lordy, wouldn't that be a wild ride? Russia shitting bricks right alongside China. Japan not being hostage to the Iranians - that would add to China's woes, lol! Europe? Interesting mixed bag, there... Chirac would try to steal it, of course, as he floats a new scheme every other week, it seems, lol! But no - we don't play the UN game anymore, so Chirac can piss up a rope. We took it fair and square, just like that pissy Saud tribe and the Wahhabists did. We don't have to listen to France - or any other sycophantic soon-to-be third world collection of fools. We take it away from them and we do what we think is best. I repeat: Fuck 'Em. Fuck Them All. Lol!
[/fantasy rant]

Well, lol, that was fun! Thanx!

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 4:19:29 AM|| 2005-03-30 4:19:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Building a nuclear power station a month would have the same effect on the price of oil and hence the whole ME swamp.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-30 4:49:55 AM|| 2005-03-30 4:49:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 No it wouldn't, lol! Go ahead, tell me what the results would be, in some detail, please. Don't forget to apply your timeframe. You're talking about something entirely different, ignoring that oil is used for more than just energy production, ignoring all other countries who won't be building nuke plants, etc. etc. etc. - the list is very long regards why this would neither have the same salutory effect nor equate to the same thing. Sheesh.

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 5:17:12 AM|| 2005-03-30 5:17:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Fine fantasy rant .com
But Saudi and Arab oil has at least 25 years of very good production to go. If we invaded took over their oil fields we would get the same sabotage we get in Iraq. You can't rule Muslims unless you are willing to inflict damage on the clans that individual Jihadis come from. If oil pipelines had been sabotaged under Saddam, he would have done exactly that. In tribal societies there are few secrets and Saddam had a secret police that knew how to find all saboteurs and anti-regime types.

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-30 6:03:40 AM|| 2005-03-30 6:03:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 OK, the price of oil is largely determined by the balance between changes in demand and changes in supply. What has happened recently is demand has increased faster than supply and the price has rocketed. Recall that less than 5 years ago after a quite a small decrease in demand the price fell to $10/b. A declining oil price seems to stimulate production from sources where oil is the primary source of revenue particularly the ME in order to maintain government revenues.

The problem is to (how to) decrease the overall demand for oil irrespective of how or where it is consumed. I haven't researched the numbers but at a rough guess a nuclear power station replaces about 50K barrels/day of oil demand. Every new NPS rachets down oil demand by that amount and its cumulative and permanent. I agree it doesn't (directly) affect the rising demand for oil elsewhere but it does send a powerful message about the way to go in terms of demand for energy. It is also scalable, i.e. over time it can be increased to 2,3,4 etc, a month.

If the overall demand for oil declines and a cheaper alternative is on offer even after declines in the oil price then you have engineered a structural reduction in the demand for oil and $50/b will seem absurdly high as suppliers pump as much as they can in order to maintain revenues.

The cost of nuclear power stations is a function of R&D costs versus production volumes plus risk premiums. I have long suspected that the WOT could be solved by the USA giving away nuclear power stations to anyone who wants them and carrying the risk (which is small).

Invading SA's coastal strip does nothing to increase oil supply in the short/medium term and carries significant risks of decreasing supply. As a lesson in cause and effect I like it, as way of reducing the oil tax, I think it sucks.

regards

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-30 6:34:05 AM|| 2005-03-30 6:34:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 sc - Do you know the oil infrastructure in Saudi? Where it's produced, refined, etc? The only facilities we'd be interested in would be in the thin strip running along the coast - that's where the oil is and where it was originally refined and shipped from. They've built additional refineries elsewhere, but we don't need to pump it out of that strip. The only possibly limiting factor is refining capacity. There is some capacity in Bahrain and UAE - and probably Qatar. Regards sabotage, it's not the whole country, just that small 30-40 km strip along the eastern shore of the Gulf. It could be held far easier that the Iraq situation - they are not parallels. I don't want to "rule" any Arabs. But this could go on all day. I'm done.

phil - Hey, you dropped the cherry bomb, I didn't, and your response addresses what? It addresses your pet idea - a very good idea, indeed - but does not bear much upon my posts. They are wildly differing scenarios, just as I said. That we could do both, take their fucking income away from them and build nuke power plants is not out of the question, of course. This exchange is exactly like the other day on the opinion piece that was deleted because of style instead of substance. That's fucking sad.

---

This is Rantburg. It was a fantasy rant. It would bring absolutely huge changes. It would have effects almost everywhere. It would absolutely address funding asshats everywhere, in particular, which was my main point. It's no more far-fetched than invading Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of murderous regimes. The only reason it's hard to do is because, over the last century or so, some people have decided such use of power is bad. I'll bet we could name 50 countries who, given our military and economic power, would absolutely do it -- and much much more. France, under Chirac, for instance.

That we are at war with the Saudis is, I believe, obvious to everyone who comes to the situation without baggage. I believe we should not be so cruel and force them to have their war alone - without even acknowledging them. That's so rude.

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 7:22:14 AM|| 2005-03-30 7:22:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Short term increases in oil prices are due solely to speculation, which has nothing to do with supply and demand.
Building more nuclear power plants takes a lot of time and a lot of money. The enviros killed that a long time ago with their half-truths and outright lies about safety, especially after 3 Mile Island. I don't believe we will be totally independant of Middle Eastern oil until it rins out.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-30 7:55:17 AM|| 2005-03-30 7:55:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 I am all for building Nuclear Plants but that alone will not solve the problem of dependency of ME oil. Most of the imported oil goes to transportation. What is needed is an alternative fuel that cars can run on.

Posted by TMH 2005-03-30 8:10:16 AM|| 2005-03-30 8:10:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 This exchange is exactly like the other day on the opinion piece that was deleted because of style instead of substance. That's fucking sad.

This is addressed much more to Fred than .com. The midnight witching hour for comments is a stroke of genuis. It allows any debate no matter how acrimonious to stop and makes us start again. Mucho Kudos to Fred for this.

And to reiterate my position, invading the SA coastal strip is a great lesson in cause and effect and on that basis I support it, as a way of eliminating the energy tax, I think it will be inifectual. It doesn't solve the rising demand for oil problem. ONLY alternate energy sources solve this problem. The French, Finns, Indias, Chinese, etc, have figured this out.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-30 8:43:47 AM|| 2005-03-30 8:43:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Sea Cruise:
If we established the Republic of Eastern Arabia, there might be some danger of terrorist attacks, but remember there wouldn't be as much money around to fund them. Or, if they diverted it that way, they would have to yank funding from the global Jihad, meaning we could also re-deploy our assets.

TMH:
To an extent, we could substitute nuclear power for transportation for oil. In the West, at least, the rails are running at full capacity, and much of the overflow goes on trucks. If we were to build some new rail lines (in spite of the pygmy owls) that were electrified with nuclear power plants, that would drop a lot of the demand for diesel in trains and/or trucks. Or go whole hog and electrify the entire rail network. This would be an enormous capital cost (a trillion dollars? two? more?), but there would be a big payback, too.

That avoids some of the flaws of many of the other plans, in that it recognizes that personal vehicles powered by gasolene I.C. engines are far superior to anything else for moving people (something Mass Transit advocates blindly refuse to acknowledge), but freight is another matter. You can't get rid of all the trucks, of course (your local grocery store probably doesn't have a rail line) and perhaps it would take decades to replace all the diesel locomotives, which makes it all the more important we get started now.

Posted by Jackal 2005-03-30 8:46:11 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-03-30 8:46:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 .com and jackal

I'm well aware that the Saudi oil fields are far from the population centers and the well known cites of Mecca and Medina. That they are even in what's a Shi'ite area of Saudi Arabia.

But this Saudi oil must be refined and shipped and these areas have lots of people and workers. Which the oil saboteurs can come from. How much is Iraq shipping now? Remember how Wolfowitz said Iraqi oil revenue would pay for any invasion? I'm impressed by the Muslim enthusiasm for guerrilla warfare and sabotage.

I'm with you emotionally on just taking over the Soddy oil apparatus but guerrilla warfare and sabotage would be a huge problem. Saddam showed that you can't get rid of mischief makers unless you terrorize and kill their families. We don't have the disposition to do this in Iraq or in Soddy. Just wait 'till China provides Iran with a nuclear umbrella. That's the upcoming wild card to be dealt us.

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-30 9:38:37 AM|| 2005-03-30 9:38:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 These arguments sound much like post-imperial Japan. They didn't want women to vote and they damn sure didn't want them in the government. In a very short time they got over it and look at them today! The Arabs will get over their machismo just like every other nation before, including the U.S. Just don't let them drive! ;-)

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-03-30 10:21:11 AM|| 2005-03-30 10:21:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 sc - Well, you've scrambled things a bit. Are you talking through your hat or from some solid info? Let's get a few facts down...

Al Dammam, Al Khobar, and Dhahran roughly form a triangle, 20km to a side. It's a population center - the Eastern Province contains the Empty Quarter, but it also contains the family jewels and isn't empty of people. In other words, the oil (and gas) sands aren't quite as isolated as you say. You can even see Aramco #1 (the first well) from the Core Area Tower Bldg where I worked for part of my stint there - still pumping I hear. Approx 50K of Aramco's 80K employees are in the Eastern Province, IIUC.

It is, indeed, a traditionally Shi'a area, though the Saudis imported Sunnis to the area rather heavily for a few decades to make certain the oil industry was politically reliable since it's their only source of income. I don't know the percentages now - just that the Sunnis have the good jobs and the palatial homes - and most of the Shi'a have shit.

As for sabotage, do you know the mix of Saudis to non-Saudis in the plants? This ain't Iraq. The Saudis are "management" by a wide margin and the worker bees, the wrench turners, by a wide margin, are US, Euro, Canadian, Filipino, Indian, and Pakistani. The politically unreliables, i.e. Muzzies, in the mix would be the Pakistanis and a small percentage of the Indians.

The actual facilities are already fenced and more for security. They have been upgraded to be defensible from land attack. Let that sink in.

I don't know how "bad" it would be -- and neither do you. As for who will fight you - it comes down to what their tribal leaders tell them to do. Lessons learned the hard way could be employed - and that could be bribes or bodies, their choice. I'd play a much harder brand of ball than you suggest, but that's just me.

As for Iran, we shall see won't we? China nuke umbrella? Oky. Document it. BTW, do you really think we will allow them to get nukes? How about Israel? I hear these things from doomsayers all the time and then I think about Israel and the fact that they have nothing to lose. If there's one bunch of folks whose check you can cash, it's the Israelis.

It's not a small easy thing. Never claimed it would be. But it sure as shit would stop the jihadi shit in its tracks. Someday that equation: risk & grief of taking their income vs. what they're doing with it world-wide may seem a bargain to a lot of people.

Posted by .com 2005-03-30 10:25:52 AM|| 2005-03-30 10:25:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 .com

You obviously know more about the place than do I. Perhaps the Saudi oil fields and facilities aren't so vulnerable to sabotage. But the recent Iraq experience with oil pipeline sabotage is not a happy one

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-30 10:33:16 AM|| 2005-03-30 10:33:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 I agree with .com that the Gulf oil fields are the strategic center of gravity for the whole war. Take them away and the whole thing come shreiking to a halt. However, the Saudis or one of their satellites are going to have to do something really stupid before we can muster the political will to go in there and take the oil fields.

Bush has already filled the national strategic oil reserve to its maximum capacity. That's probably the smartest short term thing that we could do to buffer against the inevitable supply disruption that will occur when the shit hits the fan in the Gulf.

Nukes can help, but as oil supply becomes increasingly constrained (as I understand it, there is still plenty of oil, we just can't pump it out of the ground or refine it fast enough to meet rising demand in China, India, etc.) the cash flow available to the mad mullahs and Saudis increases enormously, no matter how much energy independence the US gains.

As I stated yesterday, more cash is going to increase the temptation of the militants in the Learned Elders of Islam to attack again and defeat the Great Satan (US). More cash also feeds the Dawa efforts of the more conservative factions as .com has already pointed out. Europe remains a decisive point due to its susceptability to Dawa, dhimmitude, and conquest by emmigration.

My predictions for the next ten years: The US and/or Israel will be forced to attack Iran to thwart their nuclear ambitions. Regime change may or may not be attempted depending on how stretched we are in Iraq, Korea, etc. This, along with increased oil-based cash flow to Saudi Arabia, will empower militants within the Learned Elders of Islam to take the lead of the Movement and attack the Great and Little Satans directly. This will result in their extinction.

An altenative scenario would involve the introduction of some truly disruptive technology (nanotech, pratical fusion?) that would radically reduce the need for oil. This could result in a slow fading of the Islamist Movement to irrelevance or a violent lashing out by said Movement before it lost all leverage.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-03-30 10:59:33 AM|| 2005-03-30 10:59:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 According to Slashdot today Toshiba has announced a battery that can be recharged to 80% capacity within a minute. They expect to have them in hybrid cars sometime in 2006. I've never been a fan of electric or hybrids but this really changes things because you can recharge your car so quickly you can use the electric car like a real car. it's a start.

To bad I detest Toshiba for the treacherous acts during the cold war. Still this is great news and if real will sink the hydrogen vehicle dreams.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-03-30 2:46:44 PM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-03-30 2:46:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 For decades the Maronite Lebanese would have rather been French than Arabs. In '43 they accepted Lebanons "Arab identity" in return for Arab league acceptance of the existence of the Lebanese state and its existing borders (which go well beyond the historically Maronite area, and which have proved the Maronites achilles heel - Ariel Sharon, take note)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-03-30 2:50:47 PM|| 2005-03-30 2:50:47 PM|| Front Page Top

00:00 JosephMendiola
23:47 badanov
23:45 3dc
23:35 Laurence of the Rats
23:29 Frank G
22:56 Alaska Paul
22:42 Frank G
22:30 True German Ally
22:27 twobyfour
22:23 Alaska Paul
22:21 Alaska Paul
21:30 OldeForce
21:19 jackal
21:17 jackal
21:14 Barbara Skolaut
21:14 Atomic Conspiracy
21:09 OldSpook
20:58 Bomb-a-rama
20:54 Atomic Conspiracy
20:52 twobyfour
20:20 Bomb-a-rama
20:15 Mark E.
20:03 Alaska Paul
19:57 Phil