Doesn't take a lot to blow up.. : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Doesn't take much to blow a US destroyer out of the water these days, just need a rowboat and some explosive. What will they use for helicopters...a fully armed kite???

-- chopper1 (strange@days.indeed), October 13, 2000


If you save up maybe next year your country can afford a destroyer of its own.

-- ArmsMerchant (For@The.World), October 13, 2000.

Get REAL.....this was an 'inside' job. This also is a DISGRACE.

Lives have been lost, and more importantly, family members are STILL waiting for a response, which is sad. Having been a Navy Wife, whose hubby was stationed on a destroyer based at Norfolk, I am saddened by the loss of lives and OUTRAGED. We have friends who belonged to the George Washington Battlegroup. This is a SAD day for America.

Also, do we DARE stand up? HELL YES.... If anyone thinks we have all these pager stores on each corner of our street just for the Arab community to live is CRAZY. We DONT know HOW many terrorists are here in our own backyard. Somebody needs to think bout that. Crazed killers waiting for the 'right' moment.

Rant off.

-- consumer (, October 13, 2000.

consumer, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of friends and Americans. It *is* a sad day.

Second, I wonder if you could elaborate on your statement that "...this was an 'inside' job..."? What makes you think that? The implications are horrifying.....

-- Patricia (, October 13, 2000.


An "inside" job? Does your husband think that too? You are saying that there were traitors aboard the ship that planted the explosives IN the ship? I don't believe that, but I agree with chopper1 that an external explosion should not have caused so much damage to a well designed warship. Maybe I underestimate modern high-explosives. In any case, a good forensic engineering team will explain the nature of the explosion.

Whatever the cause, I agree it was a disgrace, a tragic disgrace. Not as disgraceful as the Beirut truck bomb that killed 400 sleeping unarmed Marines in 1983 (?) but nearly so. Reagan should have lost his job for that travesty but he started the first Wag-the-Dog war (Grenada) and deflected attention from Beirut.

-- Lars (, October 13, 2000.

Sorry let me elaborate a 'lil' futher. By inside I meant that someone in Yemen KNEW that there was a way to breach security for that ship. NO WAY in Hell do I believe it was 'our' men/women. CNN has also reported the same.

The lil boat was to help moor our ship, as it approached, the two killers stood to appear to salute.

My hubby saw the pic in this morning paper and stated "There had to be an awful lot of explosives on that lil boat to blow a hole that size into that Destroyer." The impact blew the men who were eating in the mess area clear to the top of the boat. This is where the 11 missing comes in. We will have to dig them out. There will most likely be no remains of the killers.

Now how does one suppose that those INSIDE of Yemen had no clue? Please. They are also stating their are no known terrorists there. Pleaseseeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

My hubby worked in the engine room when he was on the Arthur Radford, had he of stayed in the Navy (as I wanted) it could have been him.

My heart is burdened for the loss of lives. I know what it is like to have your spouse gone 6 months with no word when tensions rise in the middle east.

My prayers are with the family.


-- consumer (, October 13, 2000.

Sumer, thanks for the clarification.

-- Lars (, October 13, 2000.

Someone in the Administration compared the power of the explosives that damaged the ship to the Oklahoma City blast. They did not realize how correct they were. I do not think that 2 tons of amonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel would fit on that little rubber boat and it is obvious that there were more explosives in the Oklahoma City blast than could have been on that truck. If a destroyer can be taken out by a rubber raft, it is not inconceivable that a crude submarine could severly damage an aircraft carrier and take it out of service.

I saw an ABC network news story that was amazing. I forget the details but it rattled off about 10 lies in a row about the surplus, both candidates believe the surplus, and how they best plan to use the surplus. If they are that stupid, we are in bad shape.

The only way that there is a "surplus" is that you consider the current social security payments are strictly to pay current benefits and there is no fund being built up to pay future benefits. Under this theory, in about 30 years, there will be no money to pay social security benefits and there will be only 2 workers for each retiree. Lets see now, each worker has a tax increase of 30 per cent to cover the cost of retirement benefits. They will appreciate that.

-- Ed (duh@amazed.gom), October 15, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ