Nuclear weapons used in Afghanistan?

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 82
    mikemike Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).



    The only thing worse than writing an article making assertions based on assumptions 'supported' by narrowly focused testing is making further conclusions based on the article...which is the statement I have quoted above. This is the most unscientific article I have read in a long time that makes scientific assertions.
  • Reply 62 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The whole DU scare is nothing more than anti-american assholes dreaming up a disaster to slam the US. SJO is the lead anti-american hate-monger here at AI spreading her lies about DU. Ignorance is bliss when you're a anti-US bigot.



    Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?



    Do you believe that our supplying arms/ chemical weapons etc to Saddam Hussein for a decade or so was "pro-American"? Do you believe thatthe plan to cut veterans' benefits by $14-$26 over the next 10 years in "pro-American"? Do you believe that the Pentagon's denial of Gulf War Syndrone is "pro-American"? Do you believe that foreign policy that makes travel abroad hazardous for Americans, and generates anger, hatred and the formation of terror groups who carve up ordinary American people is somehow "pro-American"? etc etc ad *



    Scott, it's Memorial Day today. Go hang a plastic flag on your car/SUV. Feel the patriotic rush and remember that most misquoted of quotations:



    My Country, Right or Wrong. What a shame that the second part...the genuinely patriotic bit is so often left out: "Support it when it's Right, Dissent when it's Wrong".



    Open debate and criticism is American. Marching in lockstep to the tune of its government sounds more "North Korean" to me.
  • Reply 63 of 82
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Open debate and criticism is American.



    That it is when done with respect. Regularly playing fast and loose with facts and emotions under the false guise of open debate is not.
  • Reply 64 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AirSluf

    That it is when done with respect. Regularly playing fast and loose with facts and emotions under the false guise of open debate is not.



    Would would apply that principle to both sides of the argument? It's more than easy to diss the honesty of the entire administration using that statement.
  • Reply 65 of 82
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Lose the conspiratorial overtones in most of your postings SJO, and I suspect you'll catch a lot less flak. All of your comments in your last post (cutting benefits, supplying arms "back in the day", etc.) are not anti-American, but they frankly have nothing to do with the assertions you're making / implying in this thread. Namely that there is some sort of nasty nuclear weapons program we're using in places like Afghanistan, and that by extension our government doesn't mind using the people of such places as "lab rats". That's a load, so you need to back off that type of sentiment and just talk about these facts in real context, not in terms of the absolute worst possible thing they *might* indicate is happening.
  • Reply 66 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Lose the conspiratorial overtones in most of your postings SJO, and I suspect you'll catch a lot less flak. All of your comments in your last post (cutting benefits, supplying arms "back in the day", etc.) are not anti-American, but they frankly have nothing to do with the assertions you're making / implying in this thread. Namely that there is some sort of nasty nuclear weapons program we're using in places like Afghanistan, and that by extension our government doesn't mind using the people of such places as "lab rats". That's a load, so you need to back off that type of sentiment and just talk about these facts in real context, not in terms of the absolute worst possible thing they *might* indicate is happening.



    How about reading the article, Moogs. The research is being conducted by a DC based organization headed by a former US Army Colonel who feels that there is something worth investigating. Where's the "conspiracy theory"? It's all out in the open. If you feel that this line of research is so "unpatriotic or flawed in its very premise, why not write to the author and complain? Why not w2rite to the 7 or 8 newspapers the article has appeared in so far, if you that offended....then take it up with the four science journals who plan on publishing the findings. It's not my material, I just posted it here, with some commentary of my own. Or do feel that we should button up, as recommended by arch-weasel Fleischer when he said "Americans better watch what they say"?



    Using people as lab rats is nothing new. It happens all over, and the US is no exception. We've even used our own troops as guinea pigs for hell's sake. Let me see your refutation of the "mini-nukes" possibility before you go dumping on others' inquiries which may be inconvenient to your world view. Regurgitating "conspiracy theory" each time there's an allegation of questionable (or illegal) government/military activity etc. etc. demonstrates naivety.



  • Reply 67 of 82
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    There's no proof of any nuclear activity in Afghanistan in this or any other article, save the radiation levels, which can be explained more readily by other means, not saying that they're necessarily much better (some explanations could be "natural" causes, though they're less likely). There are many possibilities, but some are more possible than others. Insisting on a nuclear explanation isn't justified by the facts presented alone. It's not that can't be ruled out, it's that the loose evidence given points to other explanations more easily. I think more people are willing to entertain the gist of the article -- that people were infected with radiation due to bombs/weapons in Afghanistan -- than are willing to entertain such a specific cause. There are people on your side in that sense.
  • Reply 68 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Sunset in Kabul:



  • Reply 69 of 82
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?



    Do you believe that our supplying arms/ chemical weapons ...






    We didn't do that you hateful bigot. Stop spreading your lies.





    You want to point a finger? Point it at France, Germany and ... the UN for funding that maniac.
  • Reply 70 of 82
    mikemike Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Using people as lab rats is nothing new. It happens all over, and the US is no exception. We've even used our own troops as guinea pigs for hell's sake. Let me see your refutation of the "mini-nukes" possibility before you go dumping on others' inquiries which may be inconvenient to your world view. Regurgitating "conspiracy theory" each time there's an allegation of questionable (or illegal) government/military activity etc. etc. demonstrates naivety.



    ...



    The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).




    Two quick questions...



    What FACTS do you know at this point?



    Which of these facts bring you to your conclusions (your first post)?
  • Reply 71 of 82
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    SamJo, you can either taker my advice (which was general in nature, not specific to only this thread) or you can leave it. I don't give a flying fuk. I DID read the article, and I did NOT accuse anyone (you included) of being "unpatriotic" so please STFU with that misdirection nonsense. I was trying to give you a friendly little piece of advice because whether you realize it or not, many of the accusations that you post in here have conspiratorial overtones and it turns people off. It smacks of poor logic. Again, take it or leave it. I don't care.



    What's more, if YOU read my posts in this thread, you'll realize I have not ruled *anything* other than a thermonuclear device out. I actually said more than once that it's possible there is radioactive material used in the bunker-busters and that perhaps they cause some type of low grade radiation sickness. You'll notice no one is bashing me for saying that; it's probably because I read the very limited set of facts presented us, and made an educated guess about a relatively simple and plausible explanation.



    One difference between you and I apparently (thank God not the only one) is that I am observant enough to realize that if I place the phrase "Nuclear Weapons Used" in the title of a thread, I know people will take that to mean thermo-nuclear weapons. You know...mushroom clouds, skin falling off victims, soil contamination for 10,000 years...that sort of thing. And so, being given scant evidence from a single news story about something that MIGHT be nuclear in nature - and clearly NOT thermo-nuclear in nature - I am wise enough not to connect that phrase with said evidence.



    Just do the math, think things through, remember Okam's Razor and post on.



    Christ....
  • Reply 72 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    [B]We didn't do that you hateful bigot. Stop spreading your lies.



    *my* lies...hmmm... (!) oi veh



    http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/US-...am-Hussein.htm

    http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/msg00148.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1218-06.htm



    Scott....



    (1) please do some reading

    (2) attempt to be civil, if that isnt too much effort.



    sammi x
  • Reply 73 of 82
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Sorry. Try again. Selling a sample of anthrax does not equal "sold biological weapons".



    Oh and how 'bout you stop spreading your lies. You're extreme hatred of the US and mindless bigotry does you no good. Oh and a little balance in your criticism might do you some good too.
  • Reply 74 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Sorry. Try again. Selling a sample of anthrax does not equal "sold biological weapons".



    Oh and how 'bout you stop spreading your lies. You're extreme hatred of the US and mindless bigotry does you no good. Oh and a little balance in your criticism might do you some good too.




    Scott, stop digging a hole.



    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm



    Also try to not get so angry...you should know its not good for you.



    You have some strange ideas of what is good and bad for America. A recent situation is where, as a result of the recent war in Iraq, the Tuwaitha atomic facility was looted and stripped, completely unguarded for 2 weeks while US troops were busy securing oil facilities for the benefit of oil men. Now if some terrorist group, furious about the invasion, launches 'dirty bombs' against America (or anyone else for that matter), be it on the Bush Administration. Yet another example of short sightedness which may well endanger our security.
  • Reply 75 of 82
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Scott, stop digging a hole.



    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm



    Also try to not get so angry...you should know its not good for you.



    You have some strange ideas of what is good and bad for America. A recent situation is where, as a result of the recent war in Iraq, the Tuwaitha atomic facility was looted and stripped, completely unguarded for 2 weeks while US troops were busy securing oil facilities for the benefit of oil men. Now if some terrorist group, furious about the invasion, launches 'dirty bombs' against America (or anyone else for that matter), be it on the Bush Administration. Yet another example of short sightedness which may well endanger our security.






    You need to learn to 1) read, 2) think. So what I read is that this site says the US sold some germs and some "precursors to chemical warfare agents" NOT NOT NOT chemcical weapons.



    Now had the US found "precursors to chemical warfare agents" would you call that a "chemical weapon" and a violation of 1441. No. Why not? You're too pro-Saddam too anti-US. Turn your brain back on.



    All this coming from the person who Isn't sure if Saddam gassed his own people.
  • Reply 76 of 82
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,077member
    Scott,



    I've learned to stop wasting my energy and time on Samantha Joan Conspiracy. But sometimes I like to to chime in just to laugh at stuff like this:



    Quote:

    The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative...







    and this:







    Quote:

    Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here...



    Oh! My sides!





    and:







    Quote:

    Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?







  • Reply 77 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    I think the point that hasn't been addressed by sammyjo is the preponderance of satellites that various militaries use to detect heat blooms: a gas pipeline fire was once "almost mistaken" for an ICBM launch. The satellites along with seismic sensors can tell if certain countries are doing nuclear testing--and if there have been nuclear detonations.



    The most likely solution is that, after seeing the Dole/Clinton episode of The Simpsons, extended intergalactic focus group sessions concluded the best course of action for the forward elements of an alien invasion force would be to impersonate all the major world leaders in the days leading up to the invasion.



    But GWB, who is adept at cutting deals and coming out on top, (Just ask the city council of Arlington, Texas) was able, through the use of experimental technology and a spare space shuttle out of Vandenberg AFB, to send Cheney out on one last daring diplomatic mission. Successful negotiations were made and the rest, as they say, is history.



    Even now all significant world leaders (with the exception of Kim Jong Il) have been replaced with copies of their former selves. Il apparently was reckoned not to be an indigenous inhabitant of earth and was passed over for prosthesis.



    So, with alien beings monitoring the advanced nuclear detection equipment so often found in the first world countries---GWB is in position to signal the alien fleet and play his part in true diabolical republican fashion.



    The NYT refused to comment on the veracity of this article.
  • Reply 78 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    You need to learn to 1) read, 2) think. So what I read is that this site says the US sold some germs and some "precursors to chemical warfare agents" NOT NOT NOT chemcical weapons.



    Now had the US found "precursors to chemical warfare agents" would you call that a "chemical weapon" and a violation of 1441. No. Why not? You're too pro-Saddam too anti-US. Turn your brain back on.



    All this coming from the person who Isn't sure if Saddam gassed his own people.




    To quote from the link in my previous post:



    The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted? US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.''



    A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a ``witch's brew'' of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type

    Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.



    The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.



    Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other ``dual-use'' items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.




    Now who was Pro-Saddam? And most probably would have remained so, had Saddam not strayed from the program by invading Kuwait.



    Why did the US (under Bush Sr.) supply helicopter gunships and arms to Saddam to successfully squash the huge Iraqi rebellions in the wake the Gulf War? Nobody's answered that one to any satisfaction. Can you?



    The UN sanctions did nothing to hamper Saddam and his thugs...he lived in luxury in his palaces while the Iraqi people took the butt end of that piece of gross international mismanagement, to the tune of 1.5 million Iraqis dead.



    Now look what we gone and done: Saddam's now safe in hiding somewhere, most of his ex-thugs are on the loose and most of the Republican Guard melted away into civilian life. There's hordes of angry people over there armed to the teeth, gangs rule in every Iraqi city, US troops are being picked off daily by snipers, nuclear facilities have been looted, as well as everywhere else. 7000 (and mounting rapidly) innocent Iraqi civilians dead from the war. Anti US feeling is about to boil over. Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon/White House favorite to "run" Iraq is universally hated there. (He's also wanted in Jordan and Switzerland for major banking crimes). There's been a recent rash of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and elsewhere. A western style democracy in Iraq? Liberation? That's cloud cuckoo land, a sick joke. They hate us.



    It's cost we-the-US taxpayer some $75 billion for just the first installment of this f*cking stupid fiasco...all at a time the economy is in a shambles. NOTHING good has come of this so far...even the deposing of Saddam's government isn't anything near what they claim...many ex-Baathist officials are being *re-hired*!!!!



    Pro Saddam...hmmmm.....don't look at me, Scott.
  • Reply 79 of 82
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    Quote:

    Now look what we gone and done: Saddam's now safe in hiding somewhere, most of his ex-thugs are on the loose and most of the Republican Guard melted away into civilian life. There's hordes of angry people over there armed to the teeth, gangs rule in every Iraqi city, US troops are being picked off daily by snipers, nuclear facilities have been looted, as w.......



    man, you live in a very strange, scary world.
  • Reply 80 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    man, you live in a very strange, scary world.



    It's not my world. I live in comfortable white middle class S. California suburbia. And for that I shall remain eternally grateful...and always hoping that we don't get bombed by future alliance between al Qaida and extremist Iraqi militants



    And I occasionally watch satellite news broadcasts/ documentaries out of the middle east, not brought to you by Rupert Murdoch or Lowell Mays.
Sign In or Register to comment.