If they stop at just mosques: yes.

Post #239,471 by Ashton 12/26/05 9:26:02 PM Reply	If they stop at just mosques: yes. If they elect to scan near mosques, in initial sweep - merely common sense. (And I'd opine - if mosques Are the only places given a drive-by -?- they/we are and remain; as malevolently Stupid as Wolfowitz and the insouciant neoconmen demonstrably have been, all along. In every aspect of following-up after the Bomb Shows, which they obv. get-off on.)
Post #239,490 by pwhysall 12/27/05 3:20:02 AM Reply	Have you read the story? I'm not being facetious, either; there seems to be a number of respondents to this thread who I'd ask the same question to, in all seriousness. The whole point of the story linked was that mosques and private residences have been tested, in some cases agents venturing onto private property to do so. (I leave it to your vivid imagination to speculate on the religious/ethnic characteristics of the residents of those private properties. I'd bet a pint or three on "Muslim/Arab", though) That's what's boiling my piss. "We'd better go test us some radimification levels at dem sand nigger places, Jeb" <-- GWB (note: the aforementioned quote is a dramatic reconstruction, and may or may not reflect what GWB actually said (I'm reasonably confident that the retard didn't think anything)) Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #239,498 by Ashton 12/27/05 6:05:19 AM Reply	Re: Have you read the story? Yes. It's vague about what instruments were being used for "monitoring"; BBC says "air monitoring". That would be looking for particulates that are radioactive; dust from sloppy handling? I suppose. Nothing in the article mentions (say) a scintillation counter (a photomultiplier amplifying light from a sensitive crystal). This for detecting leakage of primary radiation, from a not well-enough shielded repository - which I'd think would be used too. So I don't get Matthew's ref to 'fluoroscope' .. as that would be a means for making X-rays visible, usually via your own X-ray source - - after passing through er, meat. It's hardly a 'particle, wavicle detector' of any low-level sensitivity. (Surely they aren't wandering about with some silly ZnS screen - in 2005, with all that free money for terrierism.) I read no implication that any radiation has been found, so the debate remains about the ethics of even looking for radiation near mosques. Believe I've given my views on that. (Including: if they are looking only around mosques - then they have their heads up arses, and -- I Would call that: some sort of -ism, but mostly, stupid-ism.) Not that stupidism would be surprising in this matter; why spoil a perfect record in all areas to date by, aberrantly - doing this one right?
Post #239,501 by drewk 12/27/05 9:00:18 AM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #239500 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=239500\|ICLRPD] === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #239,511 by boxley 12/27/05 10:53:52 AM Reply	death to america, death to jews jihad jihad now time for tea and not expect to be looked at? Since I doubt they hit every darkish looking great satan hater I suspect the drivebys were againsts residents that fit some profile, a subset of muslims, wahabbi perhaps, no different than targeting the Aryan Christian movement. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!