| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
In article 1111817375.db6d80bd6e832d794c1d5f5690a67319@teran ews,
says... Does your "education about the use of weapons" content that I shoot and kill them by surprise at say 30 yards ??? Sounds like a good plan to me. Though I'd probably wait till the distance was ten yards or less. But then again that is in the real world where, in many parts, everyone and their grandmother can get and run around with automatic weapons and RPG's, not in Mister Rogers Neighborhood where the bad guys are not only stupid enough to try a stunt like that with a knife but go weak kneed if you wave a gun at them. Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. -- Mike G. Heirloom Woods www.heirloom-woods.net |
Mike G wrote:
In article 1111817375.db6d80bd6e832d794c1d5f5690a67319@teran ews, says... Does your "education about the use of weapons" content that I shoot and kill them by surprise at say 30 yards ??? Sounds like a good plan to me. Though I'd probably wait till the distance was ten yards or less. But then again that is in the real world where, in many parts, everyone and their grandmother can get and run around with automatic weapons and RPG's, not in Mister Rogers Neighborhood where the bad guys are not only stupid enough to try a stunt like that with a knife but go weak kneed if you wave a gun at them. Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. Very true, and as some have said, the absolutely essential ingredients necessary for such a transformation (turning box cutters into guided missiles): The element of surprise and a good plan. Stephen |
Just an observation, I used to see the tankers coming into San Francisco
full and leaving in ballast. "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... WaIIy wrote in : They did up to 2001, then apparently stopped, although a bunch of LNG goes to Japan. Hmm...Japan pays $7/gallon for gas....Californicate only pays $3. Amazing they stopped selling to some place they can get double, isn't it? It might get REFINED in Californicate, on its way to Japan.... |
Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world
traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? I read about a recent problem in the Red Sea and I wonder what the heck anyone is doing there. It would seem better to spend time in a nice place rather then some hell hole where everyone it considering killing you for your boat. I know that if I had a shotgun or a machine gun I would not bring my wife and children into that kind of situation. As a single man I have spent time in many of the really bad parts of the world and had a good time but I would never do it with my kids. What would be so wrong if you really wanted to cruise the Phillipines to just hire a couple of armed guards. The same would probably be possible in Thailand. "rhys" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:07:56 -0500, Mike G wrote: IF you are not sure of a situation keep the firearm close at hand and out of sight and don't go waving it around like it's a magic wand. Keep it as your "ace in the hole". If you don't think you can do that don't waste money on a firearm. It'll only get you into more trouble then you would have been in without it. Whatever one's stance on guns in yachts this is very, very good advice. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I would have to train and get dozens of permits, etc., but I do agree that if you bring it out, don't stop shooting until everyone's dead or down. Of course, if you're wrong and you've killed the crew of a harmless bumboat, you'll rot in a tropical prison or make the Al-Jazeera "Beheading of the Day", but that's the chance you take. R. |
Sailct41 wrote:
Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? end_of_thread DING! we have a winner folks /end_of_thread |
Mike G wrote:
not_proven Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. /not_proven |
Mike G wrote:
If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials, and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably be better off without one. Your premature and flawed conclusions are based on my picture of a hypothetical situation you just don't want to address, cause it brings up the need to think, to weigh your decisions and choose your conduct with thought. All you do in this discussion is avoid the nuances and refer to the very easy situation in which really bad bad pirates should be shot legitimetly by surprise. Now let me put this in simple terms for you... Are you really too simple to understand there are situations possible a) forcing you to get your gun but b) do not legitimize blasting everyone around to hell? Well, if so good luck to us all then. Imo it's guys like you that are better off without a gun. |
In article ,
"Keith" wrote: Speaking of, someone posted an idea that may have some merit. He loaded up a dry chemical fire extinguisher with cayenne pepper instead of dry chemical. Charged up and claimed that it was a very potent weapon at close range. Impossible for the authorities to tell it was anything but a fire extinguisher unless they actually discharged it. I don't know how practical this is, but sounded interesting anyway. -- Not a bad idea, except when you have a fire, it wouldn't cause the FIRE to fall on the floor, gaging, snuffling, and with snot running out it's nose. Then again, if they approched you upwind, just how good would it really be? Me |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:09:09 +0100, Len
wrote: Skipper wrote: Len, Leave all firearms behind or get some education about their uses. I've seen a lot of ways a discussion can be slammed down with patronizing remarks but you get the prize... Please, please enlighten me, Capt'n, sir. What in your opinion should I do when I see an attacker or two coming towards my dear wife and me, definitely planning to rob us from all our money and electronics on board. Just muggers, with a knife. //// Yep: I see what the others are talking about: if you aim for the attackers with lethal intentions, you WILL probably miss, but might give them second thoughts. Wave it around? pop one off in the air? and you might get a belly laugh out of them. Yes...I see the trap. Brian W |
You guys are both making totally different points, and purposfully avoiding
the point that the other is making. It seems to me that both points have merit if you'll stop to consider for a moment. At the risk of stepping in between you for a moment, let me see if I can summarize what both of you are saying. Point 1: In a really bad situation with determined armed intruders, waving a gun around is a bad strategy that will probably get you shot. Therefore if you are going to carry a gun you'd better have examined yourself before hand, and be ready to shoot/kill someone if you have to pull out the gun. If you cannot do this you should not carry a gun. Point 2: There are some situations where the intruder is not determined or a professional, and the sight of a weapon will deter them into leaving the scene. In this case you may be able to avoid a potentially problematic encounter with the local police where you have to explain why you killed one of their citizens. These points are not mutually exclusive. Don W. Len wrote: Mike G wrote: If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials, and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably be better off without one. Your premature and flawed conclusions are based on my picture of a hypothetical situation you just don't want to address, cause it brings up the need to think, to weigh your decisions and choose your conduct with thought. All you do in this discussion is avoid the nuances and refer to the very easy situation in which really bad bad pirates should be shot legitimetly by surprise. Now let me put this in simple terms for you... Are you really too simple to understand there are situations possible a) forcing you to get your gun but b) do not legitimize blasting everyone around to hell? Well, if so good luck to us all then. Imo it's guys like you that are better off without a gun. |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:17:14 -0500,
prodigal1 wrote: Mike G wrote: not_proven Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. /not_proven ?? Sept 11, 2001 ring a bell? -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Rule 1: You can't cure stupid |
Don W wrote:
You guys are both making totally different points, and purposfully avoiding the point that the other is making. It seems to me that both points have merit if you'll stop to consider for a moment. Don, Thanks Don, for a 100% correct summary. Still, the conviction of some around here that not-firing is equal to "need for training" or "You are too much a wuss and will miss the real bad guys" imo leads to concern regarding their basic moral mentality. |
Len,
Just because someone is only armed with a knife does not mean that they are not dangerous. A person armed with a knife within 20 feet of you is actually very dangerous even if you are armed with a gun, because they can close the distance very quickly and kill you before you can bring your gun into action. This scenario is well known in police training, and is actually a practice scenario. Even if you fatally wound them as they are closing the distance, they may still kill you before dying themselves. In the real world, unlike the movies, people do not always drop on the spot when shot. Also, it is not as easy to accurately shoot someone who is rushing you as you might think. Two attackers armed with knives against you armed with a firearm is even worse. After you show your weapon, what are you going to do when they spread out and keep advancing on you from different angles, or they both rush you. Also, remember that just because you are willing to surrender your money and electronics does not necessarily mean that they will not kill you and your wife as well. It just depends on who you are facing, and you will not know that until after it is all over. I'm not suggesting that you shoot from ambush, but if you pull a weapon you'd better be ready to use it in a hurry, because things may happen very quickly. What is your experience with this sort of thing? Don W. Len wrote: Skipper wrote: Len, Leave all firearms behind or get some education about their uses. I've seen a lot of ways a discussion can be slammed down with patronizing remarks but you get the prize... Please, please enlighten me, Capt'n, sir. What in your opinion should I do when I see an attacker or two coming towards my dear wife and me, definitely planning to rob us from all our money and electronics on board. Just muggers, with a knife. Does your "education about the use of weapons" content that I shoot and kill them by surprise at say 30 yards ??? I expect (but also doubt) that your courage and no doubt vigorous mentality permits you to give me some sensible answer... Some americans really are funny.... LOL |
A very sensible question...
As far as people cruising by Yemen, I believe it is so they can enter Med via the Suez canal and avoid a long an potentially hazardous rounding of the Horn. Another fairly unavoidable trouble spot as I understand it is the straits of Malacca through Indonesia. These only apply to circumnavigators of course. Don W. Sailct41 wrote: Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? I read about a recent problem in the Red Sea and I wonder what the heck anyone is doing there. It would seem better to spend time in a nice place rather then some hell hole where everyone it considering killing you for your boat. I know that if I had a shotgun or a machine gun I would not bring my wife and children into that kind of situation. As a single man I have spent time in many of the really bad parts of the world and had a good time but I would never do it with my kids. What would be so wrong if you really wanted to cruise the Phillipines to just hire a couple of armed guards. The same would probably be possible in Thailand. "rhys" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:07:56 -0500, Mike G wrote: IF you are not sure of a situation keep the firearm close at hand and out of sight and don't go waving it around like it's a magic wand. Keep it as your "ace in the hole". If you don't think you can do that don't waste money on a firearm. It'll only get you into more trouble then you would have been in without it. Whatever one's stance on guns in yachts this is very, very good advice. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I would have to train and get dozens of permits, etc., but I do agree that if you bring it out, don't stop shooting until everyone's dead or down. Of course, if you're wrong and you've killed the crew of a harmless bumboat, you'll rot in a tropical prison or make the Al-Jazeera "Beheading of the Day", but that's the chance you take. R. |
Don W wrote:
This whole argument has risen from a hypothetical situation just to illustrate a view. Of course I agree with your description of the possible contingencies. Who wouldn't... LOL My experience is army training, including man to man, pistol, rifle and automatic weapons. Quite a few years back I must admit. Len, Just because someone is only armed with a knife does not mean that they are not dangerous. snip I'm not suggesting that you shoot from ambush, but if you pull a weapon you'd better be ready to use it in a hurry, because things may happen very quickly. What is your experience with this sort of thing? |
"Len" wrote in message news:1111317563.a8a0fef5a95910e18e9eaa0f9662aab4@t eranews... The missus and I are preparing our boat and ourselves for a RTW-trip in a few years. My attention was drawn to the story of the two yachts that succesfully defended themselves from pirates in the Yemen area. In the ever ongoing weapons discussion I take a moderate position. I know I'll be on my own, in known risky places preferably accompanied by a few other yachts in a convoy. SSB is your friend here... But when problems do arise I want to have a choice. Depending on the situation I want to make a choice between a) waving/using a gun and b) let it lie in it's place..., So... In order to have this choice, I will have a weapon on board, all legal, with permits, in a locker thats sealed and locked and I will undergo without complaints the cumbersome customs-scenes every time I enter some new territory .... My question is: what would be a good choice for a weapon ? I am not a drilled marksman so I guess I'll choose a shotgun, as the yacht in the aforementioned story had chosen. When I google around a bit this pump action Mossberg M590A1comes up pretty often. Together with 00-rounds this would be a helpful combination I guess. Can anyone add comments, experiences or advice ? Please feel free to send your answer to my private email if you don't want to post in this group. Regards, Len. I am new to this group but on this topic I can help. Look at the Springfield arsenal XD .40. It is easy to field strip, has good heft and has a number of tactile indicators that help out the less experienced shooter i.e.. is there a bullet in the chamber, have I got shells in the magazine? ..40 should be enough to stop anyone with even a clip shot to the torso. I would also suggest you get your self a long rifle to ensure that they get the message at a distance. Shooting out a window in front of the steersman would give anyone pause for thought. You also need training and a lot of it bear in mind there is a HUGE difference between shooting targets and a living human being. You might want to consider alternatives such as tasers, long range mace etc. |
a 12 Ga flair gun. Makes a damn good boarder repeller
"Mike G" wrote in message ews.com... In article 1111317563.a8a0fef5a95910e18e9eaa0f9662aab4@teran ews, says... The missus and I are preparing our boat and ourselves for a RTW-trip in a few years. My attention was drawn to the story of the two yachts that succesfully defended themselves from pirates in the Yemen area. In the ever ongoing weapons discussion I take a moderate position. I know I'll be on my own, in known risky places preferably accompanied by a few other yachts in a convoy. SSB is your friend here... But when problems do arise I want to have a choice. Depending on the situation I want to make a choice between a) waving/using a gun and b) let it lie in it's place..., So... In order to have this choice, I will have a weapon on board, all legal, with permits, in a locker thats sealed and locked and I will undergo without complaints the cumbersome customs-scenes every time I enter some new territory .... My question is: what would be a good choice for a weapon ? I am not a drilled marksman so I guess I'll choose a shotgun, as the yacht in the aforementioned story had chosen. When I google around a bit this pump action Mossberg M590A1comes up pretty often. Together with 00-rounds this would be a helpful combination I guess. Can anyone add comments, experiences or advice ? Please feel free to send your answer to my private email if you don't want to post in this group. Regards, Len. Can't give you legal but I had a buddy that asked me the same question for the same reason. My choice would be a sawed off or short as possible, read that riot gun which would probably be legal, 12 Ga pump shotgun loaded with #4 bird shot. At the ranges found on most boats the shotgun will require no great feats of marksmanship, the #4 shot will be deadly, and collateral damage from over penetration would be minimized. Sawed off or riot gun because a full barreled shotgun would be awkward to wield in the tight confines of a boat. You would not be picking them off at any great distance with the gun but it's be hell on a small boat packed with people when they got up close, and there isn't any sound quite as intimidating as the one of a shell being racked into the chamber of a shotgun. IMPORTANT NOTES If you should run into circumstance where such force was necessary and used it but failed to kill or seriously maim all the bad guys or, unlikely but possible, intimidate them into leaving, when they do gain control of the boat it is quite possible they may be just a tad put out with you and inclined to show it. Really bad bad guys tend to be skeptical of good guys with guns. It's a moral thing. If you should run into a time when you REALLY REALLY think you need to use the gun don't do anything stupid like telling them to go away or you'll shoot or put up their hands. Keep your mouth shut and start blasting. don't stop till there is no one left standing. You'll only have five shots in the magazine so practice speed loading. IF you are not sure of a situation keep the firearm close at hand and out of sight and don't go waving it around like it's a magic wand. Keep it as your "ace in the hole". If you don't think you can do that don't waste money on a firearm. It'll only get you into more trouble then you would have been in without it. Good luck -- Mike G. Heirloom Woods www.heirloom-woods.net |
"Boots" wrote in :
the #4 shot will be deadly, and collateral damage from over penetration would be minimized. I picture a whole new thread starting, now..... "How to get blood and guts off gelcoat and Sunbrella covered seats" or..... "Are they blisters, or just pits caused by buckshot?" |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:22:09 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote: rhys wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:07:56 -0500, Mike G wrote: IF you are not sure of a situation keep the firearm close at hand and out of sight and don't go waving it around like it's a magic wand. Keep it as your "ace in the hole". If you don't think you can do that don't waste money on a firearm. It'll only get you into more trouble then you would have been in without it. Whatever one's stance on guns in yachts this is very, very good advice. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I would have to train and get dozens of permits, etc., but I do agree that if you bring it out, don't stop shooting until everyone's dead or down. Of course, if you're wrong and you've killed the crew of a harmless bumboat, you'll rot in a tropical prison or make the Al-Jazeera "Beheading of the Day", but that's the chance you take. R. Isn't it strange, the distance to which paranoia can press one? Or prudence. I have faith in the local police and my own abilities to judge arming myself in the city I live unnecessary and probably self-defeating. Going up the Red Sea, the north east part of South America, or Indonesia is another thing entirely. There, the choice seems to be "avoid entirely" or "consider deterrence". I choose the pen. Well, I choose the keyboard, but the principle's the same. If I was a societal engineer, terror would have to be a major tool. It is already. The threat of terror is eroding democracy from the inside out. Certain Western leaders are Osama's henchmen, although I doubt they perceive that very much. If they are not 'after you', you relax, right? To be competitive, you need to be scared. A nervous trigger shoots in many directions. Hmm. In certain places, it appears that I can be minding my own business in international waters, being a good little Citizen of the Sea, and yet local malcontents and brigands will seek me out, rob me and kill me and my family. What have I got to lose by taking a few of them with me...in the last extreme, of course. It is possible that displaying a willingness to fight back will anger the theives even more. Or perhaps it will send them off to seek easier prey. The history of high seas piracy is quite instructive here. Somali and Indonesian pirates don't appear to be different in kind or moral tone than Barbary pirates or the buccanneers of the Carribbean in the 18th century. How would you inspire a nation? Is that my job? At least the RCMP has the guts to admit that they can't defend against every madman. Neither can I, but organized yacht looting isn't mad, it's just the most vicious kind of local entrepreneurship. snipping of rambling discourse Overall, BEST weapon for a sailboat: satellite linked security cameras, or counterfeit warning placards complete with phoney satellite dome, and a flamethrower disguised as a beer can or vent cowl, Zippo in hand. Doubt not, a spray of gasoline in the face and chest from a beer can full of it, accompanied by a deft c'ling, shcict, poof, and buddy is all lit up! Well, yeah, that AND a 12-gauge disguised as a boat hook. Options are the sailor's friend. First, you offer him a real beer, show that he is on live tv, and his mother might be watching, "Say Hi!", then, you shoot him with his own gun, after you help him into the water to put out the flames. The latest in reality television: Torch the Third-world Pirate! All you need is a laptop with a camera, to jab his brains out with a pen and a line, hook and sinker. Just keep him unparanoid enough to not worry about guns on boats, again. You are far more likely to get swindled by a bank or government. Why do you think I want to world-cruise in the first place? |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:38:02 GMT, Don W
wrote: Quick summary for latecomers: Having a gun aboard will be quite a hassle at check-in in many countries you visit. Not declaring it can get you arrested and your boat confiscated, along with lengthy stays in a third-world prison. If you declare, many places will sieze your weapon and hold it for you until you are ready to check out, and it may disappear during the holding process. In any case it will mean that you have to come back to the check-in city before departing, and that may be quite an inconvenience depending on your plans. I fully understand this. That's part of why it's a hard decision, but that decision is determined on the intelligence and local, evolving situations a foreign yachtie is able to gather about parts of the world one wishes to sail but where the government and the governed are perhaps some distance apart...or where the government doesn't much care if yachts are pillaged and foreigners fed to the sharks. As far as the Yemen incident in recent threads, I don't think that your "beer can" flamethrower would have been much help. Also, the cruiser involved was fairly lucky in his engagement of multiple AK-47s vs his shotgun. Very much so. One of the arguments for steel boats that isn't often touched upon. Or kevlar, perhaps G. The question of defensive weapons for yachts is very complicated and the answer is likely to be highly personal and depend on a lot of things (such as where you are going to cruise). Very true. I see nothing with which to argue here. Perhaps the seemingly exotic "suppression" weapons (super-loud sound, tasers, "pain rays") will prove in time to be a better choice than blasting skinny hoodlums with shot. I think, however, the best idea is to dissuade them from ever getting within whatever range some miserable thug possesses. That could mean "you're on Candid Piracy Camera!" and/or travelling in convoy, and/or announcing on Ch. 16 in the local tongue that you will defend your home by all means at your disposal. Could get interesting. Or you could simply never sail near the innumerable ********s of the world where yacht custom is not appreciated. R. |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:43:50 -0700, "Sailct41"
wrote: Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? You wouldn't, but see below. I read about a recent problem in the Red Sea and I wonder what the heck anyone is doing there. If you don't want to spend many weeks going halfway to Antarctica to get into the Indian Ocean, or if you are in the Indian Ocean and don't want to cruise the Med via Gibraltar several months late, the Red Sea and the Suez are a logical shortcut if you don't care to cope with the Roaring Forties. There's only so many ways to circumnavigate without putting the boat on a tractor trailer (not that there's highways in many otherwise colourful destinations), and the Red Sea transit, while a difficult sail due to nav. hazards and frequently contrary winds, is a fraction of doing what the Portuguese galleons did in the 1500s. R. |
Ok, is anyone else here experiencing deja vu? I keep seeing posts at least a
couple of times on successive visits. I know I read this one earlier, so it was marked read and I shouldn't have seen it again, but here it is again, new (for me). This is happening with other posts in the forum. Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? going crazy, be back in five minutes! -- Keith __ Money can't buy you happiness, but it does bring you a more pleasant form of misery. -Spike Milligan "prodigal1" wrote in message ... Sailct41 wrote: Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? end_of_thread DING! we have a winner folks /end_of_thread |
"Keith" wrote in
: Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? going crazy, be back in five minutes! Not on Usenetserver's system. No dupes, here. |
"Keith" wrote in message ... Ok, is anyone else here experiencing deja vu? I keep seeing posts at least a couple of times on successive visits. I know I read this one earlier, so it was marked read and I shouldn't have seen it again, but here it is again, new (for me). This is happening with other posts in the forum. Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? going crazy, be back in five minutes! -- Keith __ snipped it's happening alright. hoges in wa |
Larry W4CSC wrote in
: Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? going crazy, be back in five minutes! Not on Usenetserver's system. No dupes, here. Belay my last......the posts on tons of newsgroups started repeating on Usenetserver today...dammit. |
Larry W4CSC wrote:
Larry W4CSC wrote in : Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? going crazy, be back in five minutes! Not on Usenetserver's system. No dupes, here. Belay my last......the posts on tons of newsgroups started repeating on Usenetserver today...dammit. I have seen such happen often, suspect newsreader threading errors here. Have seen errors where some posts are repaeted many times. what software you using? Terry K |
Terry Spragg wrote in
: I have seen such happen often, suspect newsreader threading errors here. Have seen errors where some posts are repaeted many times. what software you using? Terry K It stopped, so far, today. I wasn't online much as I was working on a Yamaha 40hp outboard for a friend who was in a panic with guests arriving from Seattle. Damned Yamaha uses stiff wire wound around a pencil then points the tip and just shoves it up into the ignition wire to make contact with the spark plugs so they don't have to buy a proper spark plug socket. All three were shoved up into the cap, but only one was shoved clear out of touching the plug. Yamacrap. Oh, sorry, off subject abuse...(c; I'm using Xnews (xnews.newsguy.com) because it will download and decode ANY kind of binary posts in a selected que and store it while I'm away or asleep. I got 12 movies while I was fooling with the Yamacrap today!...(c; I used to use Free Agent for text groups, but it crashed Win98SE so often I gave up. Xnews NEVER crashes the computer....UNLESS I select over 190,000 messages in the massive binary newsgroups, when it simply overruns Win98SE's miserable 128MB of memory limit...(c; |
Jim Richardson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:17:14 -0500, prodigal1 wrote: Mike G wrote: not_proven Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. /not_proven ?? Sept 11, 2001 ring a bell? Does "The Mafia wanted to implode the towers, and rigged them with explosives 5 years ago when the 'frame strengthening' upgrade for 'earthquake protection' was done" ring a bell? Jimmie Hoffa was never solved. The towers will never be solved. Some think The gov was involved, like with JFK. It is NOT proved that Arabs did it. The best lies are the biggest ones, the best conspiracies are the largest and most involved. The smartest deadbeat dads dissapear to Rhum City, Elseplace, Beachdom. We do know that the Texan oil men have made a lot of money engineering price rises independant of cost increases. Why not build more refineries? It is likely all "free market" manipulation. Billionaires have the best advice available, and no need for scruples. "Intelligence" mopes will allways be made to carry the bag, stupidly. Fire a few spies, toast a few scapegoats, problem goes away. The public forgets, right? Do you think it will make any difference who you vote for, next time? The gov is supposed to protect you from big business, not protect big bomb builders from common sense arms reductions. Terry K |
This is of topic for rec.boats.cruising.
Please take it to alt.conspiracy.gov etc. Thanks Don W. Terry Spragg wrote: Jim Richardson wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:17:14 -0500, prodigal1 wrote: Mike G wrote: not_proven Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. /not_proven ?? Sept 11, 2001 ring a bell? Does "The Mafia wanted to implode the towers, and rigged them with explosives 5 years ago when the 'frame strengthening' upgrade for 'earthquake protection' was done" ring a bell? Jimmie Hoffa was never solved. The towers will never be solved. Some think The gov was involved, like with JFK. It is NOT proved that Arabs did it. The best lies are the biggest ones, the best conspiracies are the largest and most involved. The smartest deadbeat dads dissapear to Rhum City, Elseplace, Beachdom. We do know that the Texan oil men have made a lot of money engineering price rises independant of cost increases. Why not build more refineries? It is likely all "free market" manipulation. Billionaires have the best advice available, and no need for scruples. "Intelligence" mopes will allways be made to carry the bag, stupidly. Fire a few spies, toast a few scapegoats, problem goes away. The public forgets, right? Do you think it will make any difference who you vote for, next time? The gov is supposed to protect you from big business, not protect big bomb builders from common sense arms reductions. Terry K |
Make that off topic ;)
Don W wrote: This is of topic for rec.boats.cruising. Please take it to alt.conspiracy.gov etc. Thanks Don W. Terry Spragg wrote: Jim Richardson wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:17:14 -0500, prodigal1 wrote: Mike G wrote: not_proven Hell, even a few box cutters can bring down tall buildings in the real world. /not_proven ?? Sept 11, 2001 ring a bell? Does "The Mafia wanted to implode the towers, and rigged them with explosives 5 years ago when the 'frame strengthening' upgrade for 'earthquake protection' was done" ring a bell? Jimmie Hoffa was never solved. The towers will never be solved. Some think The gov was involved, like with JFK. |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:14:19 UTC, prodigal1 wrote:
Sailct41 wrote: Just a question from a novice cruiser but experienced ex-navy world traveler, why would you want to cruise in areas where you need weapons? end_of_thread DING! we have a winner folks /end_of_thread Well, if like me you LIVE in Indonesia, you don't have much choice. Then again, barring the Malacca Straits and Aceh area where the piracy may be seen as 'taxation by the alternative government' (the GAM rebels), Indonesia is a generally peaceful and safe place.... Another reason you might choose to cruise such areas is that you don't like giving in to thugs . Chris -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com