The terrorists want to kill me.

[sennafreak]

you hardheaded ****! goddamn i saw a documentary (think it was a bbc-one) about scientists examing places the yanks bombed and they showed a huge amount of radiactive interference on their geigerteller, so the bbc is telling **** you say, i don't know where you get your scientific report but it clearly misses out on reality.
uranium warheads penetrate everything and cause the area hit to be radiactive for millions of years if not properly removed, they also went to hospitals near area's that have been bombed and saw a dramatic increase in cancers under young children.
and your media is 'nazi style propaganda', your just to ignorant to see that i guess.

 

[High-Test]

No it isn't. There is a huge difference between Nazi news of WWII and the British and american News Organizations. they have the freedom to report anything without being prosecuted.(yes, they can report inaccurate things too! ) We in our Democratic society can be told things about our systems of government that the government might not want us to hear without the newscasters or publishers worrying about prosecution. THe Nazis under Hitler Couldn't.

Oh, Depleted Uranium Shells aren't radioactive to a degree to harm anything. everything's radioactive to some extent. you get a year's worth of radiation at the dentist's x-ray.

P.S. Cancers under young children? tumors are moving underneath earth's surface under young children? I'm afraid... Oh, and I'm not too Ignorant to see that our Broadcasting systems are like Nazi Propaganda, I'm not dumb enough to see that our broadcasting systems are like Nazi propaganda.

 

[Duke]

uranium warheads penetrate everything and cause the area hit to be radiactive for millions of years if not properly removed, they also went to hospitals near area's that have been bombed and saw a dramatic increase in cancers under young children.

Someone who can write the completely incorrect, non-factual baloney above forfeits his right to call anyone 'ignorant'.

Learning what the hell you're talking about is the first step toward convincing other people you have a point, son.

 

[Famine]

you hardheaded ****! goddamn i saw a documentary (think it was a bbc-one) about scientists examing places the yanks bombed and they showed a huge amount of radiactive interference on their geigerteller, so the bbc is telling **** you say, i don't know where you get your scientific report

Yes you do. I told you. It was:

"The World Health Organisation"

They're quite big. You may have heard of them.

but it clearly misses out on reality.

No, it doesn't. It encompasses reality wholly.

One compound cannot be both "highly radioactive" and "radioactive for millions of years" unless used in huge quantities. Big half-lives accompany low radioactive materials.

Uranium, on its own, is quite spectacularly unradioactive, as it happens. Depleted Uranium even more so, because the part which is least stable (U235) is removed.


You're falling into the trap of the uneducated masses. You're thinking Uranium = Radiation, because it's used in bombs and power stations. In fact Uranium is relatively stable until one neutron is added. The reason it's used in bombs and nuclear power stations is because it releases a lot of energy when then "heavy" Uranium divides and it always releases the same two lesser mass compounds and THREE MORE neutrons - allowing each division (or fission) to set up three more. This is the so-called "Chain Reaction" or cascade effect.

Your body releases more radiation to the environment than DU does. And, for good measure, there's more DU at Ground Zero (since it's used in BIG chunks as counterweights in civilian aircraft) than in Kosovo.

and your media is 'nazi style propaganda', your just to ignorant to see that i guess.

Guess what? I'm British. If my media is "Nazi-style propaganda", and you've just used it as your primary reference...

 

[Tacet_Blue]

i saw a documentary (think it was a bbc-one) about scientists examing places the yanks bombed and they showed a huge amount of radiactive interference on their geigerteller, so the bbc is telling **** you say, i don't know where you get your scientific report but it clearly misses out on reality..

I assure you it wasn't a BBC documentary. I suggest that the source of your information is a single document written by an online journalist called Bob Nichols which has been proliferated on many anti war websites such as dissident voice

The BBC archives have several mentions of DU use in Kosovo, the Balkans and in the Gulf.

Here are some quotes:
The World Health Organisation (WHO), part of the team, concluded that, "due to the lack of a proper cancer registry and reporting system, claims of an increase in the rates of adverse health effects stemming from DU cannot be substantiated".

Former government in Iraq claimed it led to big rise in cancers such as leukaemia
But UN has found no such link. (Notice that the UN can't find a link...not the US in a "cover up")

There is a far bigger risk to civilians in Iraq from the radiation from their abandoned nuclear reactors which were in poor condition.

"Environmental activists have demanded a clean up of radioactive waste in villages surrounding Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear plant as fears grow for local people's health."

sennafreak here is some background reading for you. I suggest you learn a little about the situation in Iraq in order for your opinion to be respected around here.

 

[Famine]

I assure you it wasn't a BBC documentary. I suggest that the source of your information is a single document written by an online journalist called Bob Nichols which has been proliferated on many anti war websites such as dissident voice

I tried. I really tried hard. I read it all and examined it thoroughly, line by line and word by word. But I couldn't do it.

I couldn't find one single factual accuracy anywhere in that article.

Sorry.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I tried. I really tried hard. I read it all and examined it thoroughly, line by line and word by word. But I couldn't do it.

I couldn't find one single factual accuracy anywhere in that article.

Sorry.

I know
With phrases like "It was a really big deal." and everything rounded up to the nearest thousand tons, it must have been written by a scientist...not. In fact the author is not even a BSc doctor or any kind of authority on radiation, but his article is duplicated everywhere. It seems to be the source of a lot of this DU radiation scare story.

Same article on other sites:
Special report
Anti Sheep
Rense
100777

Its amazing how an article such as that can become "fact" when copied enough

sennafreak in case you didn't know, dot com sites are not regulated in any way, they can print anything they want. Dot gov sites and dot edu are regulated, and are usually much more reliable sources of inf.

 

[sennafreak]

i didn't see no report on no jive anti war site, i saw it as an hour long documentary on public television... you sad gits.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

... you sad gits.

Was that really necessary. It says a lot about your character.

Just to remind you... AUP

 

[Kent]

Thanks for posting the reminder Tacet_Blue. 👍

Everyone should always keep that document in mind (the AUP that is).

Also,
I just wondered...

Where were all of these concerns after the first Gulf War when Saddam dumped as much oil as he could into the bodies of water surrounding the various oil fields he tried to steal?
http://www.usinfo.pl/docs/iraq_text3.htm

The Kuwaiti coastline, January 24, 1991.
Having failed to achieve their military aims in Kuwait, Saddam's forces did massive, irreparable damage to the environment before fleeing. Beginning in January 1991, Iraqi forces opened the control taps feeding oil from storage tanks and tankers directly into the Gulf. They released 11 million barrels of oil, roughly 12 times the amount oil carried by the tanker "Prestige" now polluting the coasts of Spain, Portugal and France.

Or the distruction of the wetlands?
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=22888

Now, I know some of you wouln't acknowledge that stuff...
Write it off because of the links or what it says, it's all the same if you don't want to face those issues.

However, do a search for yourselves.
It can be hard to find anything because if you search for "saddam's environmental crimes" it is hard to find something other than lefty articles about US war crimes.
But if you stick to it I am sure that any of you will be able to find out just how bad Saddam was for the environment in a region that some call the "fertile cresent."

Oh well, I've never been much of an environmentalist any way.
Jk, but hey, if we can ignore some of what saddam did then I guess we can ignore this stuff too, right?

btw, I never bothered looking for his crimes against humanity, but that might end up being the subject of my next post in this thread.
(oh shoot, what the heck!)...
Amnesty International article "disappearances"
Am Int Article on "Decade of Human Right Abuses"

Just an excerpt...

Torture methods reported included gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks.
...
In 1994 government decrees prescribed judicial punishments such as amputation of hand and foot, branding of the forehead, and cutting off of the ears for various criminal offences.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140082001

The interrogator asked the guard to tie my penis and one of my toes to an electric wire and onto an electric motor. He would then turn the electricity on and would increase it.

The worst part
Same Am int Page
Under "4 TORTURE, ILL-TREATMENT AND EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION OF WOMEN"

Some women have been raped in custody. They were detained and tortured because they were relatives of well known Iraqi opposition activists living abroad.
...
In October 2000 dozens of women suspected of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities after they had been arrested and ill-treated.

So I ask now...
Do you all believe Amnesty International?

Btw, doesn't it kill you when people use stuff like links to Amnesty International to support their points?
(well, it probably does for all those that wanted to leave Saddam and his regime in power. )

 

[Riplox]

Hmm...I don't really want to get into this verbal war, but It looks like I have no choice. My senses are teling me that Senna won't change his views about the war or the U.S. for that matter. I say just let him blow all the hot air he wants. It's not really hurting anything.

The following links are articles and resources pertaining to Depleted Uranium.

Saying DU is ok to use. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/595.html

Saying DU is bad to use.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1211-22.htm
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/DepletedUranium.html
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4439.htm

Just talking about DU.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

 

[Solid Fro]

FAS.org is an awesome website. Anything you want to know about the military, technology, foreign affairs, government, etc., can be found. I have used it before to present my facts.

Can't say much about the "bad" websites:

Commondreams... first word I saw was "progressive". *click*

Freespeech... looks like a Neo-Nazi website and the big red text hurts my eyes. *click*

IAcenter... "Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S". Get me a roll and eyes! *click*

Informationclearinghouse... Liberal news lite. *click*

 

[Arwin]

Just saw one interesting bit in the links above:

"The scientific evidence is cloudy because there has been so little research. It is broadly accepted that DU does little harm outside the body. But it may cause serious damage if it is inhaled. That means that people near where it is used could be contaminated, and it is possible it could seep into water tables."

Might be something worth looking into.

 

[ledhed]

The first gulf war is a "terror campaign " ? Hmmmm lots of cred here....

It wasn’t until the Desert Storm terror campaign of 1991 that the U.S. military finally got their chance to try it out on people in war. The magic bullet punctured the armor of Iraq’s Soviet-made tanks like they were aluminum beer cans. Fired from an American tank or an A-10 Warthog aircraft, one round of depleted uranium could explode a T-72 into a mass of flames. Gleeful Americans called it “Dante’s Inferno.”

....Those gleefull American tankbusters ........

 

[Solid Fro]

Once again, the Anti-Americans show their (lack of) intelligence. They fail to mention that it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait for their oil fields, not America.

I found a Jane's article about DU:

"Lead bullets are probably more dangerous than uranium bullets."

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

 

[Famine]

Just saw one interesting bit in the links above:

"The scientific evidence is cloudy because there has been so little research. It is broadly accepted that DU does little harm outside the body. But it may cause serious damage if it is inhaled. That means that people near where it is used could be contaminated, and it is possible it could seep into water tables."

Might be something worth looking into.

It's "accurate" to say that DU vapourises on impact and, unless the explosion is intense enough to ignite it, DU dust can hang around a bomb site for about 12 hours (less if it's raining).

Inhaled it could do some damage - it's less radioactive than the soil around you, but when you inhale any radioactive compound the radiation is in direct contact with soft tissue. The human skin can stop beta radiation (the usual product of U235 decay), so externally it isn't much of a threat.


Water table issues are not terribly concerning for health either. As the WHO site says, 98% of uranium ingested in food and drink isn't absorbed at all (where it could potentially do the most damage) and of the 2% that could be, 1.4% excreted within 24 hours... Remember, U235 has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION years, meaning that one atom has a 50:50 chance of decaying over the lifespan of the Earth (the maths says that the average human consumption of Uranium is 0.6 micrograms a year. If it were all absorbed, that'd be 42 million atoms, each having a 50:50 chance of decaying over the lifespan of the Earth or, on average, 4.5 decays PER YEAR. If it's inside you for 24 hours, that's about a 1/100 chance of one decay occurring in that time, but since only 0.6% of the atoms spend that long inside you, it's a 1/700,000 chance of ONE decay event).

 

[Riplox]

The human skin can stop beta radiation (the usual product of U235 decay), so externally it isn't much of a threat.

Did you mean to say alpha adiation cause if you did, you'd be correct. But if you meant beta radiation, then youe wrong on that point. Beta radiation is the harmful type that can pass through skin without any problem and deals damage to human organs and tissues.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Did you mean to say alpha adiation cause if you did, you'd be correct. But if you meant beta radiation, then youe wrong on that point. Beta radiation is the harmful type that can pass through skin without any problem and deals damage to human organs and tissues.

Gamma is the harmful type Beta is an electron moving at about 97% speed of light, it can only penetrate the skin to the dermis (about a few mm)
Typically clothing will provide adequate protection.

 

[Kent]

I might be the first mod to do this, but let me remind you all...

That's what Mike Bloomberg said. Richard Bloomberg? It should be Richard Bloomberg, he looks like a Richard.

Bloomy says that the terrorists are going to blow up people at the New York Stock Exchange, a building that I could see from my window if the other buildings weren't in the way (I live seven blocks from it). I'm only three blocks from another of Bloomy's "targets", the Federal Reserve Bank, eight blocks from the Bank of New York, and five blocks from City Hall and the Courthouse. And four long blocks from the World Trade Center.

In reality, I think I could die at any minute. Consequently, I'm buying a Mercedes C43 AMG (the old style!) so I can squeeze every remaining minute from life.

Oh, and within 13 blocks there is one bridge and one tunnel that the terrorists can use to transport their weapons of mass destruction and kill me. There's no more than 2100 feet between me and any of the things I've just described.

Consequently, we're moving the pets - it's a dog and a rabbit at last count - down to our other house in Tennessee, where we'll be spending most of our time until my job starts in three weeks.

Anyway, I'm scared, and I thought I should inform you. 👍

This thread is not about radiation or any sort of scientific discussion.

This thread is about the fear and worries of an American concerned over the consistant and constant threats of terrorists.

Please remember that before we continue a discussion regarding the science of, or the ethics of the use of depleted urianium.

Thank you and continue as you were.

 

[High-Test]

/\ Sheer Genius.... :bowdown.

I think someone needs to make a thread called "Depleted Uranium", but since famine explained it so well, the subject is dead anyways.

 

[Famine]

Just to terminate this off-topic radiation-a-thon...

The human skin can stop beta radiation (the usual product of U235 decay), so externally it isn't much of a threat.

Did you mean to say alpha adiation cause if you did, you'd be correct. But if you meant beta radiation, then youe wrong on that point. Beta radiation is the harmful type that can pass through skin without any problem and deals damage to human organs and tissues.

Alpha particles have high-mass (they are a helium nucleus - 2 neutrons, 2 protons), low penetration and high ionisation. Inside the body an alpha particle is far more dangerous than a beta particle. Yet alphas can be stopped by a sheet of tracing paper.

Beta radiation have low mass (they are a single electron), medium penetration and low ionisation. Outside the body they pose no threat, as they can be easily stopped by clothed skin, but inside the body they can penetrate several centimetres of soft tissue. Betas are typically given off when U235 decays

Gamma radiation has zero mass, high penetration and zero ionisation - but can cause other particles to emit ionising radiation. Gammas are most dangerous, despite not being ionising at all.


I also forgot to add that only 0.2% of the DU you may inhale will radioactively decay, so that's a 1 in 3.5 million chance that a decay event will take place whilst it's inside you.

 

[KieranMurphy]

First off, terrorists want to kill anyone who don't share their views with the way things should be run or who could harbor/support them, not just Americans.

That's a gross misunderstanding of the hows and whys of terrorism. Different organisations across the globe have different agendeas, different political ideas, different religions, different motives, etc. A terrorist is not someone who goes around blowing up people or shooting them because they disagree with him.

Palestinian extremists don't blow up busses and crowded markets because they've got a high concentration of people who disagree with them. It's because killing 20 innocent civilians is likely to shock and terrify their opponents to give them what they want, or to piss off the innocent populace enough that they harang the government into maybe letting them have what they want. Plenty of terrorist organisations deliberately pick innocent targets to magnify the effect they're trying to create.

Another tactic common amongst terrorists and insurgencies is to try to make an area ungovernable, either from the point of view of a legitimate government or an occupying army. A part of the IRA's tactics in Northern Ireland was to cause so much mayhem and chaos and terror that the British government was just give up and pull out.

Another tactic seen in Northern Ireland was for Loyalist extremists to deliberately try to match the IRA atrocity for atrocity so that every time the IRA performed one of their "actions", they'd respond by doing something equally atrocious to Catholic civilians in order to try to get them to stop supporting the IRA because it was backfiring on them.

I think that a lot the insurgents in Iraq don't want either the occupying troops there, for an legitimate Iraqi security force to develop or for a new government installed, which is why they target police recruiting stations and government officials. I think they just want everyone to get out and leave them to what lots of people see as an inevitable Iraqi civil war. A lot of opinion suggests that a stable Iraqi democracy is a non-starter. That if the American troops pull out after an elected government has been installed, that the Sunni and Shia militants would instantly destabilise the region and start a civil war. I don't think they're at all prepared to share power in a government.

I'm also intrigued by your use of the phrase "not just Americans". Who ever claimed that Americans were the main victims or targets of terrorism? Across Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel etc. or anywhere that's been a recent victim of terrorist atrocities, it's mainly not Americans being killed. It's innocent civilians of those countries. I'd say Americans are a tiny minority of the victims of terrorism in general.

Terrorism is nowhere near as simple and neat as your description above and I don't think anything labelled "terrorism" can be thrown into the same pigeonhole in the hope that it's all got similar explanations and solutions.


KM.

 

[Riplox]

Ok, ok. You got me there. I was kinda hesitant to post that, but I couldn't think of anything else at the time. Gj Murphy. Thanks. 👍

 

[Danoff]

I don't think [the Iraqis are] at all prepared to share power in a government.

Of course not. Most of them probably don’t have the foggiest idea of how that even works. That doesn’t mean it won’t work in the long run.

I'd say Americans are a tiny minority of the victims of terrorism in general.

A “tiny” minority? I don’t know about tiny. Maybe just stick with minority.


On a side note. You should be careful with your phrasing. In that post in many cases you sound very much like you condone some of the terrorist acts you’re discussing. It’s phrases like

they harang the government into maybe letting them have what they want

get them to stop supporting the IRA because it was backfiring on them

and these sentences combined

I think they just want everyone to get out and leave them to what lots of people see as an inevitable Iraqi civil war. A lot of opinion suggests that a stable Iraqi democracy is a non-starter.

I’m not saying that you support terrorism or agree with their causes or methods. I’m just saying that the way you said it makes it sound like that’s the case.

 

[KieranMurphy]

Of course not. Most of them probably don’t have the foggiest idea of how that even works. That doesn’t mean it won’t work in the long run.

don't care whether or not they understand the concecpt of a democratic government. I'm just pointing out that the naive idea of "terrorists" as people who are motivated by simple ideas like killing Americans or killing people who disagree with them is a stupid idea which doesn't reflect the broad ideas held by all sorts of terrorist or insurgent groups all over the world.

A “tiny” minority? I don’t know about tiny. Maybe just stick with minority.

Well, you're welcome to convince me that American citizens are anything more than a small minority of the victims of bombs, assasinations, etc. that happen all over the world everyday. It's been over 3 years since 9.11 and since then it's been Iraqis, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Spaniards, etc. that have been on my screen when news of terrorism has been reported. Maybe you can supply figures that show that American citizens have been more than a small % of terrorist attack victims in recent times.

On a side note. You should be careful with your phrasing. In that post in many cases you sound very much like you condone some of the terrorist acts you’re discussing. It’s phrases like
and these sentences combined
I’m not saying that you support terrorism or agree with their causes or methods. I’m just saying that the way you said it makes it sound like that’s the case.

Christ of al-****ing might man. Are you so ****ing stupid that you think that me trying to educate people as to the purpose and goal of certain terrorist or insurgent groups is me defending them or condoning their acts? Feel free to pick a sentence or phrase of mine in one of my posts where I actually defended or condoned a terrorist atrocity or terrorist organistaion and I'll gladly defend my remarks.

I think you can't tell the difference between someone trying to explain a fringe or extremist group's acts or beliefs and someone trying to defend or condone a fringe or extremists's groups acts or beliefs.

<edit unnecessary remarks>


KM.

 

[sennafreak]

watch what is going to happen on the january 30th elections, the road to 'democracy' no?.... anarchie i tells ya and rightly so!

 

[KieranMurphy]

I think they just want everyone to get out and leave them to what lots of people see as an inevitable Iraqi civil war. A lot of opinion suggests that a stable Iraqi democracy is a non-starter.

Maybe you could explain what in that quote of mine in anyway condones or approves of terrorism. I'm baffled as to how anyone could interpret it as being pro-terrorism.


KM.

 

[sennafreak]

maybe the nazi's called the resistance during the second world war also 'terrorists', who knows? in my view it's just a change in weapons and tactics nowadays...

 

[Solid Fro]

And the terrorists are the modern day Nazis...

Members of the Fatah youth movement chant slogans during a rally for Palestinian presidential candidate Mahmoud Abbas at a hotel in the Jerusalem suburb of Beit Hanina, January 5, 2005. Palestinian fighters wounded 12 soldiers in a rocket attack on Israel Wednesday, defying calls for a cease-fire from Mahmoud Abbas, the frontrunner to succeed Yasser Arafat in an election Sunday. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

 

[sennafreak]

well they both want to get those jews no...