« This Week in Militant Islamism | Main | All hands on deck (again) »

September 08, 2006

Comments

I love it when one of Kate the Greats excellent posts knocks one of Chazmo's turds off the T.

An alternative means of getting information from prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/washington/10detain.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=a457ae4f5b722796&hp&ex=1157860800&partner=homepage>This, ladies and gentlemen, is simply priceless:

But Mr. Zubaydah dismissed Mr. Padilla as a maladroit extremist whose hope to construct a dirty bomb, using conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials, was far-fetched. He told his questioners that Mr. Padilla was ignorant on the subject of nuclear physics and believed he could separate plutonium from nuclear material by rapidly swinging over his head a bucket filled with fissionable material.
Our civilization is in a sad state indeed if it can be brought down by the likes of Padilla and Moussaoui.

"Our civilization is in a sad state indeed if it can be brought down by the likes of Padilla and Moussaoui."

You libs are all alike in your terrorsymp weakness. Men with chests understand that a true American could be killed by that swinging bucket!

And a hundred terrorists could swing buckets at a single time, killing one hundred Americans in moments! And then another hundred, and another!

And there could be thousands of such terrorists, or as real Americans call them, "muzzies," lying in wait throughout America as we speak! You can't trust muzzies, who worship an evil false god, and whom America lets have access to as many buckets as they want, unchecked!

Ladies and gentlemen: we cannot afford a bucket gap!

Well, they did say at the early press conference about Padilla that Abu Zubaydah was "skeptical" about the dirty bomb plot. I guess now we know why.

"Well, they did say at the early press conference about Padilla that Abu Zubaydah was 'skeptical' about the dirty bomb plot. I guess now we know why."

In the sense of being skeptical of Padilla; a "dirty" bomb has nothing to do with enriching fissionables via centrifuges, of course; the entire point of one is that it doesn't (otherwise you'd be trying to create an actual nuclear explosive).

Ladies and gentlemen: we cannot afford a bucket gap!

I believe that's referred to as a "centrifuge", Gary.

"I believe that's referred to as a 'centrifuge', Gary."

Only to someone in the center of a fugue state!

(Or maybe I'm missing the joke.)

You were, but only because I did.

Mr. Padilla was ignorant on the subject of nuclear physics and believed he could separate plutonium from nuclear material by rapidly swinging over his head a bucket filled with fissionable material.

Fill up a bucket with fissionable material, and you might separate a lot of stuff from a lot of other stuff.

Which I'd try tomorrow, if I only had a bucket. And some fissionable material. And a head to swing them around.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad