NationStates Jolt Archive

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

How long will it be before we see a press release from the Whitehouse saying: "You see? They did have chemical weapons afterall!"? :rolleyes:

Interestingly, the AP and Reuters still won't call it a "terrorist" act - they refer to it as a "militant tactic" and never mention the word "gas".

It's as though the "militants" can't do anything wrong, and nothing they do can be remotely construed as a crime against humanity.

'Moslems'?
Are we back in the 19th century? Why dont we just call them 'Mohammedins'?

Anyway, theyre terrorists, or 'freedom fighters', what are you going to do? Bring them up before an international court? Threaten sanctions?

Which even Nazi Germany refused to use.

Because using Zyclon B is so morally superior. :rolleyes:

Which even Western terrorist groups have never used.

Because using Sarin is so morally superior. :rolleyes:

What's a Moslem?

Just be glad it wasn't a gas tanker. Or a tanker full of fertilizer and diesel. Would of been a hell of a lot more than 20 deaths.

Chlorine isn't much of a chemical weapon, it's mostly annoying. Speaking as someone who worked around the stuff for years, yeah it hurts, but unless you're soaked in a considerable amount of it it won't do any permanent damage.


Does suck in the eyes though, yeow. Nothing a bit of water won't fix up.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

Chlorine is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a limited use chemical weapon used in WWI due to entrenched enemy troops.

Now if you want to talk WMD - Hiroshima & Nagasaki - 'Daisy Cutters' - Bush talking about 'strategic' nukes.

Dear god - do you write for the Daily Mail by any chance??

And isn't it Muslims?

Nobody said it's OK to bomb civilians - with or without chemical weapons. There are only people who don't blame all the muslims for this terrorist acts. There's a huge difference...

And these articles are simply written in an neutral manner, like articles in serious newspapers which I prefer. They don't have to tell me what to think about this acts - I can make my own opinion.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

Terrorists are attempting to use chemicals as well as conventional explosives?

Oh noes! One would think they were terrorists or something. There should be worldwide protests against terrorists who stoop to acts of terrorism. What do they think they are, terrorists?

Mitanni, the reason no one is protesting is because they're terrorists. Since the USA is not a bunch of terrorists, it would be reasonable to protest when the USA acts like terrorists. Most rational people hold liberal democracies to a higher standard than terrorists.

Yet another clump of bigoted diarrhea from you.

Chlorine isn't much of a chemical weapon, it's mostly annoying. Speaking as someone who worked around the stuff for years, yeah it hurts, but unless you're soaked in a considerable amount of it it won't do any permanent damage.


Does suck in the eyes though, yeow. Nothing a bit of water won't fix up.

It depends on the concentration, doesnt it? There are different types of chlorine. Your average pool chlorine will only irritate you, but concentrated/weaponized/whatever chlorine can blind you permenantly and wreck your respritory system.
Ever seen WWI-era pictures of lines of men with rags over their eyes walking towards the rear?

What's a Moslem?

Just be glad it wasn't a gas tanker. Or a tanker full of fertilizer and diesel. Would of been a hell of a lot more than 20 deaths.

Chlorine isn't much of a chemical weapon, it's mostly annoying. Speaking as someone who worked around the stuff for years, yeah it hurts, but unless you're soaked in a considerable amount of it it won't do any permanent damage.


Does suck in the eyes though, yeow. Nothing a bit of water won't fix up.

It's clorine GAS. That's almost like saying that mustard gas can't be bad because mustard isn't bad. Clorine gas is basically what you get when you mix bleach with ammonia...or was that clorine? Anyway, it's very toxic.

And by the way- the reason that the nazis didn't use chemical weapons was, that they feared an even worse anwser of Great Britain. In fact, they have developped some even worse chemical weapons which would have caused many deaths, as these WMD would kill instantly. But they thought that the Britains would still have some chemical weapons, and that they would use it, too, so they were to afraid.

And by the way- the reason that the nazis didn't use chemical weapons was, that they feared an even worse anwser of Great Britain. In fact, they have developped some even worse chemical weapons which would have caused many deaths, as these WMD would kill instantly. But they thought that the Britains would still have some chemical weapons, and that they would use it, too.

Indeed. IMO, the main reason why chemical weapons qualify as weapons of mass destruction is that, while generally limited in their effect, they will most likely result in a MAD-type scenario.
And these days some of the nastier chem weapons can do some pretty horrible things to people.

Shia's VS Sunni's is not news. But Chlorine Gas is a bit extreme, so perhaps they are getting desperate.

It's clorine GAS. That's almost like saying that mustard gas can't be bad because mustard isn't bad. Clorine gas is basically what you get when you mix bleach with ammonia...or was that clorine? Anyway, it's very toxic.

Stron mineral acids IIRC, the addition of H+ ions changes the position of the equlibrium liberating elemental chlorine from hypcohlous(the spelling is wrong ClOH is the formula though.) acid.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

To be fair the victims were Muslim too, so it all evens out.

gas as a WMD is a lot of crap, it's very ineffective, hard to control and dissipates very quickly...it sucks as a weapon

conventional weapons used by the military carpet bombs, cluster bombs and fuel/air bombs are far more lethal than gas...

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

Too late (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm).

Too late (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm).

1) White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

2) The civilian population of Falluja was told to evacuate before the Marines came in and the WP was used.

A better question: Why, if the US is unable or unwilling to stop Iraqi insurgents from using chlorine gas bombs, is it still in Iraq?

ETA: "Moslem?" ... Don't act illiterate.

It's clorine GAS. That's almost like saying that mustard gas can't be bad because mustard isn't bad. Clorine gas is basically what you get when you mix bleach with ammonia...or was that clorine? Anyway, it's very toxic.

Chlorine gas is highly ineffective as a killing agent. It is only dangerous in concentrated and prolonged doses (a lethal dose is 1000 ppm, in comparison .1 ppm of mustard gas is enough to cause massive blistering and respiratory damage). It's use was pretty muched abandoned by midway through WWI, except when it was mixed with phosgene, in order to help disperse the heavier and more lethal gas.

Admittedly, it can cause some serious problems, and it's troubling that the insurgents have access to this sort of thing, but chlorine gas isn't exactly the rarest thing in the world. All sorts of industries use it as an oxidizing agent, and it's a byproduct of several chemical processes, so it's not terribly surprising that they were able to locate some. I do think that we should take immediate measures to ensure that terrorists don't get their hands on more lethal substances.

-snip-
While the attack is no less brutal and unjustified than any other, I don't think leaping on the methodology is going to help things here. In either case, it's an indiscriminate attack on innocent bystanders and exactly that. We need to deal with the source of these attacks, but that source is not the religion of Islam; the problem is a combination of the fact that the Iraqi dictatorship, Western intervention and military action and existing middle eastern Extremists (rendered so by conditions of deprivation, oppression and poverty of their own, it must be said) have together managed to destroy the livlihood of millions of people that have now become desperate to make their plight known.

Saying "kill the Muslems" is only making the problems worse; we need to engage with them to determine the underlying reasons for their desperation and meet them head on. I guess the same is true for western Extremists like yourself, too. So tell me, Mitanni; what can be done to make your world a better place?

1) White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

Hence making it not a chemical, right?

2) The civilian population of Falluja was told to evacuate before the Marines came in and the WP was used.

And thus all collateral damage is justified. You have proved your point.

gas as a WMD is a lot of crap, it's very ineffective, hard to control and dissipates very quickly...it sucks as a weapon

conventional weapons used by the military carpet bombs, cluster bombs and fuel/air bombs are far more lethal than gas...

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Ever heard of VX? Its quite effective, and lasts for weeks. And it was developed ages ago.
How much would you like to bet that the US, Russia, and China (and others, no doubt) have developed even more effective versions?

It's clorine GAS. That's almost like saying that mustard gas can't be bad because mustard isn't bad. Clorine gas is basically what you get when you mix bleach with ammonia...or was that clorine? Anyway, it's very toxic.

Been there, done that. It's why I have almost no sense of smell. It's annoying, but not near fatal unless you're standing in a huge cloud of it until you suffocate.

1) White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

2) The civilian population of Falluja was told to evacuate before the Marines came in and the WP was used.

I thought incindiary weapons were illigal as well >_>

I thought incindiary weapons were illigal as well >_>

It's a flare.

I thought incindiary weapons were illigal as well >_>

in that case we'd better pack up the napalm

Hence making it not a chemical, right?


Using that logic, you could call C4 Explosive or good ole Gunpowder a chemical weapon, right?

Hence making it not a chemical, right?



And thus all collateral damage is justified. You have proved your point.

Lead is a chemical. If I shoot you does that mean I've used WMD? No, only a moron would think that.

Yeah, it does. In fact, any casualties from the WP could be considered enemy fighters. The civilians were told to leave.

Anyway, don't let facts get in the way of antiamericanism. Carry on.

I thought incindiary weapons were illigal as well >_>

Only when used on an area populated with civilians. Since the civilians were told to evacuate long before, it's use was within the laws of war.

Using that logic, you could call C4 Explosive or good ole Gunpowder a chemical weapon, right?

Only when used by the evil USA.

Only when used on a civilian area. Since the civilians were told to evacuate long before, it's use was within the laws of war.

Its all so clear now!

If only the germans had just told all the jews to leave, they wouldnt have been in any trouble with all those camps and gas chambers.

Using that logic, you could call C4 Explosive or good ole Gunpowder a chemical weapon, right?

I think the use of the term chemical weapon is in referance to chemicals that are dispersed to exploit their toxic properties.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

Define WMD...

Define WMD...

Don't you know anything? If a "moslem" mixes bleach and ammonia and then blows it up and the fumes kill five people, thats a weapon of mass destruction! Like why we invaded iraq.

I think the use of the term chemical weapon is in referance to chemicals that are dispersed to exploit their toxic properties.

Not according to the "logic" I quoted.

*blinks*

a double post with different wording?

Since the civilians were told to evacuate long before, it's use was within the laws of war.
Except where the civilians were being kept prisoner against their will, and thus unable to leave when told to.

Lead is a chemical. If I shoot you does that mean I've used WMD? No, only a moron would think that.

...You're kidding, right? You honestly thought I was using that logic? And if you ground up enough lead and blanketed an area with it, yes that is a chemical weapon. I never said WMD, because I really don't know what constitutes a WMD other than a nuke.

But how do you mistake chemical weapon for flare when it was used as a weapon?

Yeah, it does. In fact, any casualties from the WP could be considered enemy fighters. The civilians were told to leave.

Anyway, don't let facts get in the way of antiamericanism. Carry on.

Ok, so lets say a band of heroes comes liberates America from George W Bush. Now they want to drop a bomb on LA to get rid of the remnants of the former administration. Being the pansies most of LA probably is, they run. But some stay because they will not let a bunch of invaders tell them what to do.

Yeah, your spelling of Muslim makes me ignore everything you typed.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.
Chlorine Gas? Wmd? Then arrest me for keeping weapons of mass destruction in my school chemistry lab!

And by the way- the reason that the nazis didn't use chemical weapons was, that they feared an even worse anwser of Great Britain. In fact, they have developped some even worse chemical weapons which would have caused many deaths, as these WMD would kill instantly. But they thought that the Britains would still have some chemical weapons, and that they would use it, too, so they were to afraid.

Actually, considering it all, the reason why the Nazis refrained from their use [noting that they did use chemical weapons, especially in their concentration camps] was because Der Fuhrer himself was a victim of a gas attack - he did not like the idea that his own soldiers would be gassed and suffer the same problems, so the Nazis were reluctant to use them more so because of the backlash of their own weapons [at least depending on which way the wind was blowing as well]. In addition, you only needed to use gas to clear a front, and in mobile warfare, the static front was pretty much obsolete, so using gas was sort of obsolete as well [in that context...]

...You're kidding, right? You honestly thought I was using that logic? And if you ground up enough lead and blanketed an area with it, yes that is a chemical weapon. I never said WMD, because I really don't know what constitutes a WMD other than a nuke.

Chemical Weapons (yes, Chemical Weapons are defined as WMD, along with nukes and biological agents) are specifically defined as substances using their toxic properties to kill (or injure) someone.

White Phosphorus is not toxic. It burns. You need to ignite it for it to kill someone.

Its all so clear now!

If only the germans had just told all the jews to leave, they wouldnt have been in any trouble with all those camps and gas chambers.

Quit acting dumb. You know as well as I do that there is a difference between rounding people up and systematically gassing them and using incendiaries on a city who's civilian population has left and is currently inhabited by enemy fighters.

Actually, considering it all, the reason why the Nazis refrained from their use [noting that they did use chemical weapons, especially in their concentration camps] was because Der Fuhrer himself was a victim of a gas attack - he did not like the idea that his own soldiers would be gassed and suffer the same problems, so the Nazis were reluctant to use them more so because of the backlash of their own weapons [at least depending on which way the wind was blowing as well]. In addition, you only needed to use gas to clear a front, and in mobile warfare, the static front was pretty much obsolete, so using gas was sort of obsolete as well [in that context...]

Pretty much. Gas is too unreliable.

New Mitanni is a piece of racist trash.

'Moslems'?
Are we back in the 19th century? Why dont we just call them 'Mohammedins'?


Actually, along with Ann Coulter, New Mitanni has used that exact word. It's a way for him to be demeaning to Muslims without resorting to a crudity like "camel jockeys." It's the grown-up, media-whore, politically-correct way to throw mud.

Except where the civilians were being kept prisoner against their will, and thus unable to leave when told to.

Evidence?

It's clorine GAS. That's almost like saying that mustard gas can't be bad because mustard isn't bad. Clorine gas is basically what you get when you mix bleach with ammonia...or was that clorine? Anyway, it's very toxic.

Actually, if you take a chemistry class you will learn that Chlorine is an element and thus not a compound or mixture.

Ammonia and bleach is mustard gas

Actually, if you take a chemistry class you will learn that Chlorine is an element and thus not a compound or mixture.

Ammonia and bleach is mustard gas

Ammonia and Bleach is Chlorine Gas.

Doesn't take a genious to actually make this gas. I even could make it if I wanted to cause mayhem.

White Phosphorus is not toxic. It burns. You need to ignite it for it to kill someone.

If the article I provided hasn't lit up what I'm getting at, allow me to clarify further:

Chopper descends on Fallujah. Chopper ignites and disperses White Phosphorous on civilian population. On purpose.

...You're kidding, right? You honestly thought I was using that logic? And if you ground up enough lead and blanketed an area with it, yes that is a chemical weapon. I never said WMD, because I really don't know what constitutes a WMD other than a nuke.

But how do you mistake chemical weapon for flare when it was used as a weapon?



Ok, so lets say a band of heroes comes liberates America from George W Bush. Now they want to drop a bomb on LA to get rid of the remnants of the former administration. Being the pansies most of LA probably is, they run. But some stay because they will not let a bunch of invaders tell them what to do.


WP is used as an incendiary and to produce smoke. It's prupose is not as a chemical weapon, which is good because it sucks as a chemical weapon. The byproduct is phosphoric acid. Check the ingredients on a can of coca cola. It's got phosphoric acid in it. Is coke a WMD? Sure it can be toxic with chronic exposure over a long period of time in high concentrations, but the concentrations and duration of exposure in a WP attack aren't enough to cause poisoning.

You stay because you won't let the invaders tell you what to do and you're either the enemy, or you're too stupid to continue your line. It's natural selection.

Actually, if you take a chemistry class you will learn that Chlorine is an element and thus not a compound or mixture.

Ammonia and bleach is mustard gas

Bleach is roughly 97-99% water, with 1-2.5% chlorine by volume. You could (probably) drink bleach with no ill effects, it's very weak.


The chlorine I worked with was in the 17.5-20% concentration range. Put your hand in that and it'll come out sizzling. Actually it makes this bubbling white foam all over the exposed area. Kind of like peroxide on a wound. Dissolves clothing very quickly if you get it on you. Hurts like hell in an open wound or your eyes.


Bleach, ha!

Yeah, your spelling of Muslim makes me ignore everything you typed.

No wonder. It's his posting history that makes me ignore his "outrage" at the killing of innocent muslims...

Doesn't take a genious to actually make this gas. I even could make it if I wanted to cause mayhem.

Mayhem like making your neighborhood smell like they're all washing their whites? Chlorine is useless once it's diluted much, probably why no one uses chlorine gas.

Also misspelling Genius makes me giggle.

If the article I provided hasn't lit up what I'm getting at, allow me to clarify further:

Chopper descends on Fallujah. Chopper ignites and disperses White Phosphorous on civilian population. On purpose.

The reported use on civilians is controversial, but White Phosphorus' role is not. It is an Incendiary Weapon. Not a Chemical Weapon.

Ammonia and Bleach is Chlorine Gas.

I thought it was chloramines and hydrazine?

On checking we were both right. It can produce Chlorine, Hydrazine, and a trichloramine called Nitrogen Trichloride.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A795611

Actually, if you take a chemistry class you will learn that Chlorine is an element and thus not a compound or mixture.

Ammonia and bleach is mustard gas

If you take a chemistry class, huh.

Apparently you didn't do so well in chemistry class there, ace.

"mustard gas" indeed :rolleyes:

If the article I provided hasn't lit up what I'm getting at, allow me to clarify further:

Chopper descends on Fallujah. Chopper ignites and disperses White Phosphorous on civilian population. On purpose.

What civilian population? They were told to leave. Any who stayed were either too stupid to continue living, or were actively helping the enemy by fighting or acting as human shields.

Ammonia and Bleach is Chlorine Gas.
NM, mixing the 2 releases Cl2 as a byproduct. I just looked it up in my chem book. Of course you need a good method to catch all of the gas in a high concentration.

Doesn't take a genious to actually make this gas. I even could make it if I wanted to cause mayhem.

I think the second part of that statement, if true, demonstrates the first.

Interestingly, the AP and Reuters still won't call it a "terrorist" act - they refer to it as a "militant tactic" and never mention the word "gas".

It's as though the "militants" can't do anything wrong, and nothing they do can be remotely construed as a crime against humanity.

Incorrect. If they target civillians its a crime. If they attack US personnell its "Good hunting" as far as I'm concerned.

NM, mixing the 2 releases Cl2 as a byproduct. I just looked it up in my chem book. Of course you need a good method to catch all of the gas in a high concentration.

2NaOCl + 2NH3 --> 2NaONH3 + Cl2

Equation, for all that want it.

God, this is bringing back terrible memories of Chemistry Class.

What civilian population? They were told to leave. Any who stayed were either too stupid to continue living, or were actively helping the enemy by fighting or acting as human shields.


Yeah, yeah, yeah......If Osama pays you lot a return visit, having warned you the first time, does that make it ok? Back to your own country bucko.

Doesn't take a genious to actually make this gas. I even could make it if I wanted to cause mayhem.

Even easier if you highjack a truck...

What civilian population? They were told to leave. Any who stayed were either too stupid to continue living, or were actively helping the enemy by fighting or acting as human shields.

Or maybe they're just people who don't or can't leave their home just because they're told to.

You're trying to put the responsibility of their killing, on themselves. "It's their fault, they didn't get out of the way." That's BS, DCD. If I announce by megaphone that I'm going to blow up your house, and then I do, and someone in your house is killed, who is responsible? I am.

Otherwise, might as well blame the rape victim for "asking for it."

Yeah, yeah, yeah......If Osama pays you lot a return visit, having warned you the first time, does that make it ok? Back to your own country bucko.

Osama is specifically targeting civilians. The US in Falluja gave the civilians warning and a chance to leave in order to spare civilians. How can you compare one with the other? You have to sacrifice reason, logic, and morality in favor of antiamericanism.

2NaOCl + 2NH3 --> 2NaONH3 + Cl2

Equation, for all that want it.

God, this is bringing back terrible memories of Chemistry Class.

Congrats on properly balancing the equation, you get a thumbs up. I haven't taken a chem class since my 1st semester.

Or maybe they're just people who don't or can't leave their home just because they're told to.

You're trying to put the responsibility of their killing, on themselves. "It's their fault, they didn't get out of the way." That's BS, DCD. If I announce by megaphone that I'm going to blow up your house, and then I do, and someone in your house is killed, who is responsible? I am.

Otherwise, might as well blame the rape victim for "asking for it."

If you announce it and I don't get my roommate out and leave, if we just sit there, yeah, our deaths are partly our fault. You're still to blame for illegally bombing the house, but there is the difference. The military is bound by the rules of war. Under the rules of war, what they did was legal.

Congrats on properly balancing the equation, you get a thumbs up. I haven't taken a chem class since my 1st semester.
Next time, we'll have to make the South Islands give us the redox half-equations.;)

Next time, we'll have to make the South Islands give us the redox half-equations.;)

Die.

Osama is specifically targeting civilians. The US in Falluja gave the civilians warning and a chance to leave in order to spare civilians. How can you compare one with the other? You have to sacrifice reason, logic, and morality in favor of antiamericanism.

Well it was an illegal war of aggression launched purely and utterly for perceived American interests, based on lies and falsehoods, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, many directly by US forces, so no, I don't have to ditch anything, thanks for asking.

WMD is singular and plural (Weapon of Mass Destruction; Weapons of Mass Destruction), and even if it needed an s on the end, it would never need an apostrophe. End of grammarant, we now return you to your thread. Sorry.

Well it was an illegal war of aggression launched purely and utterly for perceived American interests, based on lies and falsehoods, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, many directly by US forces, so no, I don't have to ditch anything, thanks for asking.

Yeah the war was based on lies, but it was declared anyway. We're not judging the war, which I've come out against consistently before and during the conflict. We're judging the decision to use WP against insurgents in a city who's civilian population was given warning and ample time to evacuate. Don't try to muddy the specific issue I'm talking about.

So, the terrorists got their hands on more weapons? What did you expect? They're terrorists. Anything to inflict harm, or create fear plays in their favour.

I can see it being news if the terrorists suddenly started picking flowers and sharing a pint with the Yanks.

Yeah the war was based on lies, but it was declared anyway. We're not judging the war, which I've come out against consistently before and during the conflict. We're judging the decision to use WP against insurgents in a city who's civilian population was given warning and ample time to evacuate. Don't try to muddy the specific issue I'm talking about.

Its much of a muchness to the many many dead. Yes people die in war, but that can only be justified by the ends. Thats a non-flier here so.........

in that case we'd better pack up the napalm

Napalm is illegal to use, now. Similar compounds are still legal, but napalm itself is banned.

If you announce it and I don't get my roommate out and leave, if we just sit there, yeah, our deaths are partly our fault.

Even if one of you is a quadruple amputee and the other is a seven year old child?

It is NEVER the fault of the victim to be victimized. Especially in war. Kee-rist.

You're still to blame for illegally bombing the house, but there is the difference. The military is bound by the rules of war. Under the rules of war, what they did was legal.

I'm not concerned with legality here, only the blaming the victim thing.

Just Great... What next. (Sarcasm)

This isn't good at all, they're learning faster now.

Even if one of you is a quadruple amputee and the other is a seven year old child?

It is NEVER the fault of the victim to be victimized. Especially in war. Kee-rist.



I'm not concerned with legality here, only the blaming the victim thing.

Sometimes the victim shares the blame. You gave the example of blowing up my house. If you gave me as much warning as the people in Fallujah had I could have called friends and family to get me out, possibly even a moving company to get my stuff. If I stayed, even if I were a quadruple amputee, I share in the blame for my death. In the case of Fallujah, the majority of people were able-bodied and old enough to understand what was going to happen. They would help relatives and friends out if they needed it.

What civilian population? They were told to leave. Any who stayed were either too stupid to continue living, or were actively helping the enemy by fighting or acting as human shields.

Which is illegal in and of itself. You are right that it was not a violation of I.L. regardless of what the left tries to say.

Which is illegal in and of itself. You are right that it was not a violation of I.L. regardless of what the left tries to say.

Is it a violation if the right says it then?

Yeah the war was based on lies, but it was declared anyway. We're not judging the war, which I've come out against consistently before and during the conflict. We're judging the decision to use WP against insurgents in a city who's civilian population was given warning and ample time to evacuate. Don't try to muddy the specific issue I'm talking about.
...

We're not judging the war... *uncontrollable laughter*

If someone unjustly invaded my country (be it Americans, or the only racial group I hate more - Mossies) then I would do everything in my power to kick them the hell out.

I'd use WMD if I had the chance.

If I stab someone to death, then that's wrong. If they try to kill me first, I call self defence.

Now on the issue of evacuation:

"Please leave your homes, we want to kill the people seeking to protect you from us and destroy your livelyhood. We have no plans to reimburse you, and intend on putting you in a shanty for the duration of this war. Never mind the fact that you might be killed as a traitor by your troops. The disabled, elderly and young children are also expected to walk out into this warzone."

Now... do you follow the instructions of the people who've invaded or try to wait things out in your own home... Let me think about that one.

Evidence?
It is surprisingly difficult at the minute to find any source on conditions in Fallujah that is not "OMG they used chemicals how dare they !!1!". All I can submit at the minute is that Fallujah in the summer of 2004 was noted as having dissolved into an extremist mob rule where anything seen as yielding to US pressure was liable to be met with a swift murder. That was basically the reason for the assault in the first place.

If you think a public declaration of "We're going to bomb you all out so please leave" is likely to make the extremists change their ways on this then I think you're being a little naive.

It is surprisingly difficult at the minute to find any source on conditions in Fallujah that is not "OMG they used chemicals how dare they !!1!". All I can submit at the minute is that Fallujah in the summer of 2004 was noted as having dissolved into an extremist mob rule where anything seen as yielding to US pressure was liable to be met with a swift murder. That was basically the reason for the assault in the first place.

If you think a public declaration of "We're going to bomb you all out so please leave" is likely to make the extremists change their ways on this then I think you're being a little naive.

The warning was intended to spare civilian lives during the assault, not to change the extremist's ways.

Dear Space Aliens,

Please invade our planet right now so New Mitanni and Deep Kimchi can shut the fuck up about "3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/|z".

Thank you.

Sometimes the victim shares the blame.

Nope.

Tell you what, make a new thread about whether sometimes, rape victims share the blame of their rape. Seems like it'd be an interesting topic.

You gave the example of blowing up my house. If you gave me as much warning as the people in Fallujah had I could have called friends and family to get me out, possibly even a moving company to get my stuff. If I stayed, even if I were a quadruple amputee, I share in the blame for my death. In the case of Fallujah, the majority of people were able-bodied and old enough to understand what was going to happen. They would help relatives and friends out if they needed it.

And let's say you didn't leave because a bunch of bandits had promised to kill you if you did. Still your fault? What if you didn't have any means of leaving the city - no money, no transportation, no telephone and friends. Still your fault? I guess it's your fault for not being "able-bodied" or "old enough."

When someone victimizes another person, no matter what that person does or doesn't do, the victimizer is fully responsible and to blame. Always.

The warning was intended to spare civilian lives during the assault, not to change the extremist's ways.
The Extremists' ways are often to kill anyone seen collaborating with the US forces. You have to consider that in many cases the civilian must balance up the threat of death at the Americans' hands if they don't leave versus the almost certain death at the hands of the Insurgents if they're caught doing so.

This is a Hobson's choice; that is, it is not a choice at all.

The Extremists' ways are often to kill anyone seen collaborating with the US forces. You have to consider that in many cases the civilian must balance up the threat of death at the Americans' hands if they don't leave versus the almost certain death at the hands of the Insurgents if they're caught doing so.

This is a Hobson's choice; that is, it is not a choice at all.

Good point.

Still, the Marines had to go into Fallujah in my opinion. Some of the insurgents, not most, but some shared Al Qaeda's aims. All of them were hampering efforts to get a constitution passed and a government elected so we could fix what Bush stupidly decided to break. Too bad we didn't have more troops on the ground. I don't think we'd be seeing as many problems with Shi'ite militias if the Sunnis could have been stopped from attacking the Shi'ites time and time again. Giving warning was the decent thing to do. Most civilians got out though. The extremists couldn't keep the majority in.

Osama is specifically targeting civilians. The US in Falluja gave the civilians warning and a chance to leave in order to spare civilians. How can you compare one with the other? You have to sacrifice reason, logic, and morality in favor of antiamericanism.

Something that Nodinia is quite good at.

Die.
:(

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

But these uses are insignificant and use pre-Desert Storm chlorine. So they don't count. Not unless you are one of the targets, of course.

Why does everything get labeled WMD?

Because it is cool to say :D

Edit: TIME-WARP!!!!!

Why does everything get labeled WMD?

As justification for Il Douche's Grand Ole Adventure in 3b1l|\/|0zl3|\/|land. If a Jihadist farted in Baghdad, you bet "The Liberal Media" would call it a WMD gas attack.

Why does everything get labeled WMD?

But these uses are insignificant and use pre-Desert Storm chlorine.
Does any article say that? I haven't seen that anywhere. Seems to me that it's very likely chlorine that's not hard to get a hand on these days, gven the Iraqi water situation. I won't be surprised if the cans of chlorine is imported from the US and reads Halliburton on the sides...

...

We're not judging the war... *uncontrollable laughter*

If someone unjustly invaded my country (be it Americans, or the only racial group I hate more - Mossies) then I would do everything in my power to kick them the hell out.

I'd use WMD if I had the chance.

If I stab someone to death, then that's wrong. If they try to kill me first, I call self defence.

Now on the issue of evacuation:

"Please leave your homes, we want to kill the people seeking to protect you from us and destroy your livelyhood. We have no plans to reimburse you, and intend on putting you in a shanty for the duration of this war. Never mind the fact that you might be killed as a traitor by your troops. The disabled, elderly and young children are also expected to walk out into this warzone."

Now... do you follow the instructions of the people who've invaded or try to wait things out in your own home... Let me think about that one.

1) Then you're a combatant. You get killed. All is right with the world.

2) "Please leave your homes, we want to kill the people seeking to protect you from us" The US didn't go in to kill civilians. That's an unfortunate and unavoidable situation. The US wouldn't have gone into Falujah at all if the insurgents weren't there. In fact, the Insurgents weren't protecting anyone but themselves by using civilians as human shields as you admit when you say the following. "Never mind the fact that you might be killed as a traitor by your troops."

3) Walk, use cars, buses, trucks, camels, donkey carts, whatever. They had weeks to leave. Plenty of time to go if you want to and if you're not being held as a human shield.

But these uses are insignificant and use pre-Desert Storm chlorine. So they don't count. Not unless you are one of the targets, of course.Not even our pet racist NM claimed that they were from Saddam's stockpile.

1) Then you're a combatant. You get killed. All is right with the world.

2) "Please leave your homes, we want to kill the people seeking to protect you from us" The US didn't go in to kill civilians. That's an unfortunate and unavoidable situation. The US wouldn't have gone into Falujah at all if the insurgents weren't there. In fact, the Insurgents weren't protecting anyone but themselves by using civilians as human shields as you admit when you say the following. "Never mind the fact that you might be killed as a traitor by your troops."

3) Walk, use cars, buses, trucks, camels, donkey carts, whatever. They had weeks to leave. Plenty of time to go if you want to and if you're not being held as a human shield.

Just hope to gods that you're never in that situation, because I'd hate to see you have to eat those words.

Why does everything get labeled WMD?

Because when the bush government was spinning lies to mobilize the invasion of Iraq, they claimed falsely that Iraq had WMDs, and was for this reason somehow a threat to the US.

Good point.

Still, the Marines had to go into Fallujah in my opinion. Some of the insurgents, not most, but some shared Al Qaeda's aims. All of them were hampering efforts to get a constitution passed and a government elected so we could fix what Bush stupidly decided to break. Too bad we didn't have more troops on the ground. I don't think we'd be seeing as many problems with Shi'ite militias if the Sunnis could have been stopped from attacking the Shi'ites time and time again. Giving warning was the decent thing to do. Most civilians got out though. The extremists couldn't keep the majority in.

I seem to remember something about two bridges being blocked off, snipers targeting ambulances and civillians being blocked from going to the hospital....wasnt extremists though....

Something that Nodinia is quite good at..

I merely point out that as all violent action will almost inevitably lead to innocents dying, it can only be justified by the goal. Here this cannot be the case. Therefore Fallujah was part of the overall "plane into building" that is the US occupation.

And at least himself has the balls to speak his mind. I realise you've been slapped silly in many incarnations here, but thats no excuse for sniping from the wings.

When I did my military service we trained with phosphorous grenades. We used them for "instant smoke-screens". We were told that if we used them in closed confines or if we threw them at the enemy, we would risk being "court marshalled" - that they were a ABC/NBC weapon if used that way. But this was in Sweden and I think we've signed pretty much every UN-weapons restriction document there is.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:


The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

You're a troll aren't you? "Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons" are you serious? A few guys blow up a cholrine truck,oh wow. there aren't world wide protests because its not a big thing, their faith has nothing to do with it. Talk to me when they mustard gas an entire city. til then, be gone with your evil Muslim fear mongering.

What's a Moslem?

What's a Moslem?
A religion, of course, in the same way that Transjordan, Tanginyka and Siam are countries.

(I was having a go at NM, not you, by the way.

What's a Moslem?

Same as a Muslim, archaic spelling if I'm not mistaken.

Same as a Muslim, archaic spelling if I'm not mistaken.

I thought it was just a name used by xenophopbic morons to somehow take a shot at "Muslims." Close enough.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

Chlorine Gas was not 'banned' after World War One. It comes under the umbrella of chemical weapons, when used as a weapon - and is thus may be regulated or forbidden under various conventions and protocols... but international treaties don't often deal with sub-national or pan-national groups.

On the other hand, Chlorine Gas has perfectly legal use in a variety of chemical treatment processes... most obvious of which, perhaps, is the production of your tap water.

But, let us look at the picture - an occupying force with automatic weaponry, a huge (and expensive) air campaign, armour and artillery. A civilian population which is being strategically disarmed.

Is it any surprise that people are beginning to resort to 'other' means?

And no - I don't condone the use of Chlorine as a weapon. I just don't think we should be acting surprised that our empire building overseas is bringing out a darker side in the natives we are oppressing.

Chlorine Gas was not 'banned' after World War One.

Obviously I am referring to the use of chlorine gas as a weapon. Nice try, Sparky.

It comes under the umbrella of chemical weapons, when used as a weapon - and is thus may be regulated or forbidden under various conventions and protocols... but international treaties don't often deal with sub-national or pan-national groups.

Prediction: if the issue is ever brought before a competent international tribunal, it will be found that the prohibition on the use of poison gas as a weapon extends to all such groups, and indeed to individuals.

But, let us look at the picture - an occupying force with automatic weaponry, a huge (and expensive) air campaign, armour and artillery. A civilian population which is being strategically disarmed.

Iraq is not being "occupied" in the sense that Korea was occupied by Japan, 1910-1945. More like the way Japan and Germany were "occupied" after WWII. Those "civilian populations" were "strategically disarmed" as well. Furthermore, armed "civilian" militias and para-military groups have no legitimacy and no right to be armed in the first place. We are absolutely right to disarm them, we would be wrong not to disarm them, and it's long overdue.

Is it any surprise that people are beginning to resort to 'other' means?

First, it's not "people", as in poor oppressed ordinary Iraqis, who are "resorting" to "other means." It is Saddamite dead-enders, Sunnis dreaming of seizing power again, and Iranian-backed Shiite fanatics who are responsible for the violence.

Second, since all of the foregoing have long ago placed themselves outside the pale of civilization and acted as outlaws--and who btw should be treated as outlaws in the original sense of the word, as people outside the protection of the law--it is not surprising that they would engage in the most egregious violations of international law. It is, however, intolerable and must be crushed without mercy and without delay.

And no - I don't condone the use of Chlorine as a weapon.

Of course, that's why you go to such lengths to make excuses for it.

I just don't think we should be acting surprised that our empire building overseas is bringing out a darker side in the natives we are oppressing.

We are not "oppressing" anyone. Anyone who thinks we are doesn't know what "oppression" is and more likely is in favor of an Islamo-nazi victory.

I was having a go at NM, not you, by the way.

If you want a go at me, bring it.

To the point, I'll use whatever spelling I see fit, whether "archaic" or otherwise. I'm not going to change my usage of the English language every time some group decides they don't like it. I don't refer to China as Zhungguo, Japan as Nippon, Germany as Deutschland, French as Francais, Hebrew as Ivrit, or employ any other non-English usage. I don't refer to Eskimos as Inuits. I don't refer to black Americans as African Americans, Afro-Americans, or whatever else happens to be the term of the day in some segments of the population.

And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and the one true God concerning the term I use to denote them.

Sorry, "a small number of people used chlorine gas" vs. "the US covering most of Fallujah in White Phosphorous and napalmed the Republican Guard"...

Quite who has the moral upper hand, may I ask?

And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and the one true God concerning the term I use to denote them.
Gee, you know who you sound like?
And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and Allah concerning the tactics I use to fight them.

Sorry, "a small number of people used chlorine gas" vs. "the US covering most of Fallujah in White Phosphorous and napalmed the Republican Guard"...

Quite who has the moral upper hand, may I ask?

Which is why war cannot be waged successfully under the terms of peace. As unfortunate as it is, war dictates its own set of morals.

Gee, you know who you sound like?

Both sides of the fence are utterly convinced of their truth, and the truth is only a mirror.

It is those upon the fence, and who do not get caught in the cross fire, who observe the actions of both sides and note the similarities over a cup of tea. :p

Which is why war cannot be waged successfully under the terms of peace. As unfortunate as it is, war dictates its own set of morals.

All very true. Which is why it grates so much when Bush and his administration claim to be morally superior. They are no more moral than the AL Quada animals they are facing.

What's a Moslem?

A follower of the Islamic faith.

See also Muslim, Muslem.

If you want a go at me, bring it.
If this was a verbal debate, I'd give you a hug. Not because I agree with you - far from it - but because it seems like you could really do with one right now. :(

of my country,.

Which you will go down defending, keyboard blazing....


my civilization ,.

Burgers, shiny white teeth, foodstuffs with added cheese, death squad training schools.....


and the one true God .

What has my penis go to do with this?

Obviously I am referring to the use of chlorine gas as a weapon. Nice try, Sparky.


That isn't what you said.

This isn't a telepath convention, if you want to say something, you have to say it - and you don't get to blame other's because you are incapable of making the point.


Prediction: if the issue is ever brought before a competent international tribunal, it will be found that the prohibition on the use of poison gas as a weapon extends to all such groups, and indeed to individuals.


I don't think you are being realistic. If one looks, for example, at the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, one finds that they bind the signatory powers. Since one must be a sovereign state to BE a signatory power, an individual cannot be bound by those conventions and protocols directly.

What would you do, cut off diplomatic ties with Al Qaeda? Issue sanctions against the insurgency?

The regular toolbox of diplomacy (and the Geneva Conventions and Protocols are diplomacy), simply doesn't function on sub-national or pan-national groups.


Iraq is not being "occupied" in the sense that Korea was occupied by Japan, 1910-1945. More like the way Japan and Germany were "occupied" after WWII. Those "civilian populations" were "strategically disarmed" as well. Furthermore, armed "civilian" militias and para-military groups have no legitimacy and no right to be armed in the first place. We are absolutely right to disarm them, we would be wrong not to disarm them, and it's long overdue.


I'm not sure your opinion on the occupation matters. I doubt if Iraqis are staying up nights saying "Poor Fatima was raped by US soldiers, again, but... at least we don't have it as bad as they did in Korea".

Let us execute a small mental exercise. Imagine a fundamentalist Islamic regime was imposed on the US tonight. (I'm assuming you are American). Are you seriously telling me you'd just quit your bitching, and surrender to the new Islamic overlords?


First, it's not "people", as in poor oppressed ordinary Iraqis, who are "resorting" to "other means." It is Saddamite dead-enders, Sunnis dreaming of seizing power again, and Iranian-backed Shiite fanatics who are responsible for the violence.


People are people. If they are followers of Saddam... they are still people. If they are Shiites, they are still people. If they are Sunnis, they are still people.

To say it isn't 'people' is either racist beyond belief, or just stupid.


Second, since all of the foregoing have long ago placed themselves outside the pale of civilization and acted as outlaws--and who btw should be treated as outlaws in the original sense of the word, as people outside the protection of the law--it is not surprising that they would engage in the most egregious violations of international law. It is, however, intolerable and must be crushed without mercy and without delay.


How are you going to crush 'it' without mercy or delay? As you said - these people are acting outside of the laws - it's not like they are applying for terrorism permits, or something.


Of course, that's why you go to such lengths to make excuses for it.


I didn't make any excuses. I talked about why it is happening - I didn't excuse the action.


We are not "oppressing" anyone. Anyone who thinks we are doesn't know what "oppression" is and more likely is in favor of an Islamo-nazi victory.

So - anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview is a terrorist nazi?

Indeed...shall we proceed to post more delightfull ways to describe a individual his background?

I believe african-americans are sometimes called some word which so happens is quite deliciously "archaic" which thankfully makes it allright...
Black?

Indeed...shall we proceed to post more delightfull ways to describe a individual his background?

I believe african-americans are sometimes called some word which so happens is quite deliciously "archaic" which thankfully makes it allright...

What is that word called again?

I know it sounds like Niger the latin word for black, but I forgot what word we use. *scratches head*

A follower of the Islamic faith.

See also Muslim, Muslem.

Indeed...shall we proceed to post more delightfull ways to describe a individual his background?

I believe african-americans are sometimes called some word which so happens is quite deliciously "archaic" which thankfully makes it allright...

If you want a go at me, bring it.

To the point, I'll use whatever spelling I see fit, whether "archaic" or otherwise. I'm not going to change my usage of the English language every time some group decides they don't like it. I don't refer to China as Zhungguo, Japan as Nippon, Germany as Deutschland, French as Francais, Hebrew as Ivrit, or employ any other non-English usage. I don't refer to Eskimos as Inuits. I don't refer to black Americans as African Americans, Afro-Americans, or whatever else happens to be the term of the day in some segments of the population.

And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and the one true God concerning the term I use to denote them.


"Moslem" is not the english idiom. You may as well be using zhongguo, nippon, &c.

If you are a native speaker and yet aren't capable of understanding how to write in English correctly, you put into serious question your capability to understand other, more complicated things.

The only alternative to this sort of incapability is a lack of moral courage. If you mean muslim, say muslim. If you mean 'sand ******' or 'dune coon,' say 'sand ******' or 'dune coon.'

'Moslem' only makes you appear to be a coward or a fool.

We are not "oppressing" anyone. Anyone who thinks we are doesn't know what "oppression" is and more likely is in favor of an Islamo-nazi victory.

The Nazi's are involved now? For some odd meta physical reason it seems these goose stepping jovial fellows appear at pretty much every discussion...

At more serious note, shall we all refrain ourselves from adding Nazi to every word seeing as it's just silly. Maybe the word will actually mean something if we don't keep using it all the time...

'Moslems'?
Are we back in the 19th century? Why dont we just call them 'Mohammedins'?


Uh... 19th century? The spelling 'moslem' was still in common usage through the 1980s. 'Mohammedin' was still commonly used in the 1960s. Writers in the 19th century mostly used Mussulman, Musselman, or Mussulmaun.

"Moslem" is not the english idiom. You may as well be using zhongguo, nippon, &c.

If you are a native speaker and yet aren't capable of understanding how to write in English correctly, you put into serious question your capability to understand other, more complicated things.

The only alternative to this sort of incapability is a lack of moral courage. If you mean muslim, say muslim. If you mean 'sand ******' or 'dune coon,' say 'sand ******' or 'dune coon.'

'Moslem' only makes you appear to be a coward or a fool.

There's just so damned many ways to offend people nowadays. For most of my life "Moslem" was proper and not offensive. It wasn't until sometime in the '90s that it suddenly became associated with something less desirable.

Black?
Close yet you need to dig deeper into the past young grasshopper...

Close yet you need to dig deeper into the past young grasshopper...

Magice?

Yeah, your spelling of Muslim makes me ignore everything you typed.

Since when has spelling been a valid cause to refute a post? (Especially when it's about a word from another alphabet, which makes any spelling arbitrary - look at the way Russian politicians are spelt in various countries)


Also, from a English - German dictionary:

Muslim also: Moslem, Muslem [rel.] - der Moslem auch: Muslim [Islam]

Magice?

No need to dig that deep... ;) Anyway ill refrain from going off-topic anymore as my point is made...have fun and play nice kids...

If you want a go at me, bring it.

Funny, you act as if you have a leg to stand on...

You seem to be unable to grasp that the fact that there isn't a public outcry over the use of gas by terrorists isn't because the Jew/commie/left-wing pinkos are making excuses for the so called "islamo-terrorists". It's because no-one's really suprised that the terrorists are using *gasp* terrorist tactics :eek: .

Besides which, chlorine gas, as has been pointed by numerous other posters is hardly the barbaric WMD that you claim. People stopped using it specifically because it just plain sucked. The Nazis didn't use it because Zyklon B was more effective. "Western terrorist groups" don't use it because good old fashioned explosives and Sarin gas works better. Sure, it's far from nice to use chlorine, but I was honestly more disgusted by the beheadings.


And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and the one true God concerning the term I use to denote them.

This statement completely wiped out any trace of credibility you had left. I'm Christian and it's because of bigoted morons like you that myself and other rational Christians have such a hard time on these boards.

I'm Christian and it's because of bigoted morons like you that myself and other rational Christians have such a hard time on these boards.

Yeah, his statements really make people proud to be an infidel...

So - anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview is a terrorist nazi?

Yep. Now we see the putrid depths of New Mitanni's bigoted, nationalist paranoia. He thinks we're all working for the Fifth Column of Evil Moslem Invaders. It's his way of... how shall I put it... trying to magically silence opposition through the use of a single word.

I was really surprised when he said "One True God" and referred to muslims as "infidels." If anyone has a more terroristic mindset* than him, I'm hardpressed to find 'em.

*With the exception of not actually intending to actively do a damned thing. Lest he miss his beauty sleep.

I just had a really horrific thought. What if the Shiites decide to retaliate in kind? What if they blow up a chlorine tanker in a Sunni neighborhood?

And as far as I know, 'Moslem' is an alternate spelling of 'Muslim' that has fallen out of usage.

And as far as I know, 'Moslem' is an alternate spelling of 'Muslim' that has fallen out of usage.

Much like colored person.

Prove your God is the true one, Mitanni. Better yet...

PROVE I AM NOT GOD!

And as for the usage in question, there are few things less important to me than the opinion of infidel enemies of my country, my civilization and the one true God concerning the term I use to denote them.

One true G-d? You're Jewish too?

One true G-d? You're Jewish too?

He's Jewish in the sense that the KKK is Jewish.

He's Jewish in the sense that the KKK is Jewish.

KKK stands for Kosher, Kosher, Kosher? :p

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

Well done. Most bigoted thing I've read all day.

*Claps. Slowly.*

ETA: "Moslem?" ... Don't act illiterate.

Moslem, Muslim. The word is transliterated both ways. If you want to get technical about it, then try مسلم.

No-one has asked this question yet, and I am highly surprised

Where did the terrorists get the weapons from?

Indeed...shall we proceed to post more delightfull ways to describe a individual his background?

I believe african-americans are sometimes called some word which so happens is quite deliciously "archaic" which thankfully makes it allright...

Since when did Moslem become a derogatory term? Any word can be considered derogatory in its context, but Moslem is by nature no different than Muslim.

No-one has asked this question yet, and I am highly surprised

Where did the terrorists get the weapons from?

Which weapon? The explosives seem to be pretty common in Iraq. The Chlorine? It's used in all kinds of things from water treatment to industrial uses or is generated as a byproduct.

Prove your God is the true one, Mitanni. Better yet...

PROVE I AM NOT GOD!

Prove that you are.

Since when did Moslem become a derogatory term? Any word can be considered derogatory in its context, but Moslem is by nature no different than Muslim.

The problem arises when it is used in a negative context which in this case it seems it does happen.

Also I wasn't much refering to "moslem" but was frowning at a certain poster who claimed he could care less about how certain minorties are to be called.

Prove that you are.

I already did. You were looking the other way.

Mitanni has the same gall a terrorist has in calling other religions "infidel".

I already did. You were looking the other way.

I'm looking now.

Mitanni has the same gall a terrorist has in calling other religions "infidel".

An infidel is a nonbeliever. Is he wrong? Are the terrorists? The problem with truth is that there is only one. Proof is nothing; conviction is everything.

I'm looking now.

Hey, what's that over there? *Points*

An infidel is a nonbeliever. Is he wrong? Are the terrorists? The problem with truth is that there is only one. Proof is nothing; conviction is everything.

The problem is that it takes tremendous gall to assert that "everyone else" is an "infidel". Especially with God on the forums. :p

What's a Moslem?

Just be glad it wasn't a gas tanker. Or a tanker full of fertilizer and diesel. Would of been a hell of a lot more than 20 deaths.

Chlorine isn't much of a chemical weapon, it's mostly annoying. Speaking as someone who worked around the stuff for years, yeah it hurts, but unless you're soaked in a considerable amount of it it won't do any permanent damage.


Does suck in the eyes though, yeow. Nothing a bit of water won't fix up.

That explains why it was used as a war gas in WW I.

That explains why it was used as a war gas in WW I.

While in no way condoning the use of chlorine gas by the terrorists, it bears pointing out that the reason why the majority of chemical weapons, including chlorine, were so devastating in WWI is primarily a result of the conditions the soldiers fought in. Trenches and craters tend to cause gas to pool, and it is these concentrated pools that caused the most significant and severe injuries. Also, anytime you have a large body of men crammed together in a small (narrow) space, concentrated weapons like gas and artillery shells become astronomically more lethal.

Thus, the main reason for chlorine's effectiveness in WWI (and the reason it was banned after) were a combination of the lethal potency of concentrated pools that collected at the bottoms of trenches and craters and the millions of soldiers who lived and fought an arm's length away in a ditch less than three feet wide, and the effect of gas was increased as it could harm/kill far more people before it was dispersed.

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

So are the victims, right?

While in no way condoning the use of chlorine gas by the terrorists, it bears pointing out that the reason why the majority of chemical weapons, including chlorine, were so devastating in WWI is primarily a result of the conditions the soldiers fought in. Trenches and craters tend to cause gas to pool, and it is these concentrated pools that caused the most significant and severe injuries. Also, anytime you have a large body of men crammed together in a small (narrow) space, concentrated weapons like gas and artillery shells become astronomically more lethal.

Thus, the main reason for chlorine's effectiveness in WWI (and the reason it was banned after) were a combination of the lethal potency of concentrated pools that collected at the bottoms of trenches and craters and the millions of soldiers who lived and fought an arm's length away in a ditch less than three feet wide, and the effect of gas was increased as it could harm/kill far more people before it was dispersed.

It would work well in an urban area as well. It would also increase the number of casualties (if not deaths) in such an area surrounding the explosion for a few minutes.

And even if the effects are temporary, it scares people more than an ordinary explosion.

There are also other things you could attach to the tanker of chlorine - small things - that could make it far more deadly. If you can attach a small explosive to the tanker, you can certainly add another package.

There are also other chemicals that are transported in tanker trucks that would be far more deadly. If this is just an attempt to come up with something more deadly with less explosives, it's only a matter of time before they select a truck carrying something far worse.

There are also other chemicals that are transported in tanker trucks that would be far more deadly. If this is just an attempt to come up with something more deadly with less explosives, it's only a matter of time before they select a truck carrying something far worse.

That assumes they HAVE something worse at their disposal.

Regardless, the whole "the moslems (using here the horribly mis-spelled version Mitanni uses to offend) don't protest terror" - while they DO protest it as I proved to him countless times in easy arguments - and "the librulz don't protest terror but protest when our troops act like terrorists" - which means he's angry because we are holding the troops to a higher standard than terrorists - is not only dirt easy to counter, it's getting annoying, really.

Maybe I should apply Brutus' Honor on him? I AM getting tired of being merciful...

Islamic enemies of civilization are now using chemical weapons against civilian targets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_factory_raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/news/iraq.php

You read it right: Moslem terrorists are now using chlorine gas against civilians. Chlorine gas, which the civilized world banned after WWI. Which even Nazi Germany refused to use. Which even Western terrorist groups have never used. A weapon of mass destruction.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

If the US had even thought of using chemical weapons, the entire world, to say nothing of "the Arab street" would be rioting against us.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.
When I see indignant, even ignorant posts such as the ones you regularly profer as pure propaganda, I find it necessary to remind you of certain facts:

The world DID protest BEFORE the US violated International Law and invaded Iraq:

Protests against the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war)

The US used chemical weapons in the Gulf War against civilians:

"The Highway of Death" (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm)

The US has used chemical weapons against Iraqis on more than one occaision:

Fallujah:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9307.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

There are many more links but those should suffice.

BTW, my protesting your "protest", doesn't mean that I condone the use of chemical weapons by anyone, and you are way off the mark to think that a lack of protest of the recent use of chemicals by Muslims is equal to worldwide support of Muslims, and or the use of chemicals.

Remove the blinders and see the real world!!

Because using Zyclon B is so morally superior. :rolleyes:



Because using Sarin is so morally superior. :rolleyes:

To continue with your thougths

Or how about depleted uranium munitions? by the US

Or how about cluster bombs? By the US

When you're so quick to condemn others it is wise to dig in your own backyard first to see if you truly have the moral higher ground. Do I think that their use of Chlorine bombs is appropriate? No! But let's stop the holier than thou horse shit New Mit. :p

Chemical Weapons (yes, Chemical Weapons are defined as WMD, along with nukes and biological agents) are specifically defined as substances using their toxic properties to kill (or injure) someone.

White Phosphorus is not toxic. It burns. You need to ignite it for it to kill someone.

oooh ignite it, you mean like when it's used with an explosive bomb or mortar shell? Really, you're better than this. It burns and continues to burn for hours. Also, I brought up depleted uranium and cluster bombs, all of which have been outlawed and decried by the international community.

To continue with your thougths

Or how about depleted uranium munitions? by the US

Or how about cluster bombs? By the US

When you're so quick to condemn others it is wise to dig in your own backyard first to see if you truly have the moral higher ground. Do I think that their use of Chlorine bombs is appropriate? No! But let's stop the holier than thou horse shit New Mit. :p

You're bringing up things of which the US gets accused of (even though depleted uranium munitions are not considered chemical weapons by treaty, and the US hasn't signed any treaties concerning cluster munitions).

But, you would rather NEVER accuse terrorists of using chemical weapons - that's forbidden in your book.

oooh ignite it, you mean like when it's used with an explosive bomb or mortar shell? Really, you're better than this. It burns and continues to burn for hours.
Yes. That is what WP does. That doesn't make it a chemical weapon, if that's what you were trying to say.

Also, I brought up depleted uranium and cluster bombs, all of which have been outlawed and decried by the international community.

Why did you do that by the way?

And isn't it Muslims?

Technically you can spell it with an 'O' as you are trying to transfer a sound from arabic that does not have a letter in the english language.

Mohammad can equally be written as Muhammad - ditto Muslim, although recently using an 'o' has been taken over by rascists who think it is derogeratory.

Yes. That is what WP does. That doesn't make it a chemical weapon, if that's what you were trying to say.



Why did you do that by the way?

Liuzzo can't be bothered to know if something is really a chemical weapon or not.

You're bringing up things of which the US gets accused of (even though depleted uranium munitions are not considered chemical weapons by treaty, and the US hasn't signed any treaties concerning cluster munitions).

But, you would rather NEVER accuse terrorists of using chemical weapons - that's forbidden in your book.

I'm sure he is pointing out that the U.S. as the one wearing the white hat are supposed to be held to a higher standard then we would expect from terrorists. We are not supposed to drop to their level after all simply because they don't follow the rules.

I'm sure he is pointing out that the U.S. as the one wearing the white hat are supposed to be held to a higher standard then we would expect from terrorists. We are not supposed to drop to their level after all simply because they don't follow the rules.

You will note that I am not arguing that we should drop to their level.

I am arguing that they should be held to the same standards that we are.

The so called "Highway of Death" is not actually the bloody massacre that it's often made out to be. It certainly looked impressive, all of these vehicles obliterated on a road, yet, in reality it would seem that only several hundred were killed. Not "tens of thousand" as the article implies.

If they were held to the same standards as a national army then they wouldn't be terrorists. They'd be a national army.

Note that nobody is supporting attacks on the Iraqi population

You will note that I am not arguing that we should drop to their level.

I am arguing that they should be held to the same standards that we are.

If they were held to the same standards as a national army then they wouldn't be terrorists. They'd be a national army.

I don't care what you call their organization. If we're going to have standards, then they apply to everyone - not just to the US.

Everyone.

You're silly :D

of course they do apply to terrorists, however we have no democratic control over terrorist organisations...

If they were held to the same standards as a national army then they wouldn't be terrorists. They'd be a national army.

I don't care what you call their organization. If we're going to have standards, then they apply to everyone - not just to the US.

Everyone.

WHERE ARE THE WORLDWIDE PROTESTS AGAINST THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY??!!

Half the world is already at war with them. What would be the point?

Anyway, calling the bombs WMDs just because they are chemical weapons is overexaggeration. They actually have to cause mass destruction to be WMDs.

I don't care what you call their organization. If we're going to have standards, then they apply to everyone - not just to the US.

Everyone.

Great. Why don't you join the military, go to Iraq, and try applying them.

Maybe we'll be lucky enough to see your casket on the way ba-oh, what's that? No, I guess not.

I don't care what you call their organization. If we're going to have standards, then they apply to everyone - not just to the US.

Everyone.

Do you want to tell the insurgents to play nice? Or should I?

It depends on the concentration, doesnt it? There are different types of chlorine. Your average pool chlorine will only irritate you, but concentrated/weaponized/whatever chlorine can blind you permenantly and wreck your respritory system.
Ever seen WWI-era pictures of lines of men with rags over their eyes walking towards the rear?

hmm are you sure that wasn't mustard gas that did that damage? i could've sworn it was.

Been there, done that.

Really? You've been in Iraq? You've been flown back in a casket? You're typing from beyond the grave?

Wow, just wow.

Great. Why don't you join the military, go to Iraq, and try applying them.

Maybe we'll be lucky enough to see your casket on the way ba-oh, what's that? No, I guess not.

Been there, done that.

The answer is obvious: there aren't any worldwide protests because the perpetrators are Moslems.

yeah right. if anything, MUSLIMS are called terrorists before they even reach the level of violence that "armies" do. stop being a retarded pussy. yeah i said it. dyke.

You're bringing up things of which the US gets accused of (even though depleted uranium munitions are not considered chemical weapons by treaty, and the US hasn't signed any treaties concerning cluster munitions).

Technically, since DU gets powdered and subsequently being mixed into the local terrain, not to mention it being an alpha emitter IIRC, it could be considered to be a radiological weapon. A somewhat dispersed dirty bomb so to speak.


But, you would rather NEVER accuse terrorists of using chemical weapons - that's forbidden in your book.

Oh come now DK, we all know the inverse is true to you. You'd never accuse the US of doing anything bad. Cause it so ruin those dreadfully expensive rose glasses of yours.

I'm sorry but are you implying you were in the military?

And that he apparently died and was shipped back in a casket no one was allowed to see.

Stupid time warp.

Been there, done that.

I'm sorry but are you implying you were in the military?

<flame snip>

You should tone it down a very very large bit.

Technically, since DU gets powdered and subsequently being mixed into the local terrain, not to mention it being an alpha emitter IIRC, it could be considered to be a radiological weapon. A somewhat dispersed dirty bomb so to speak.

But it isn't, by international treaty. So stuff it.


Oh come now DK, we all know the inverse is true to you. You'd never accuse the US of doing anything bad. Cause it so ruin those dreadfully expensive rose glasses of yours.

I'm not DK. So come now yourself. It's a pathetic response to an argument.

I'm sorry but are you implying you were in the military?
Yes.

But it isn't, by international treaty. So stuff it.




I'm not DK. So come now yourself. It's a pathetic response to an argument.

you're pathetic. in general. so stuff it.

<further flame-ery>

I sense much troll with this one. Troll leads to flames. Flames lead to mod actions. Mod actions lead to the banhammer.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/allyoucaneatsushi/1136329709338.jpg

I sense much troll with this one. Troll leads to flames. Flames lead to mod actions. Mod actions lead to the banhammer.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/allyoucaneatsushi/1136329709338.jpg

This post has been quoted because it's the best one I have seen in ages.

If the terrorists want to use chlorine as a weapon I suggest mixing it at roughly a 1:1 ratio with phosphoric acid. Makes a pretty yellow cloud and consumes all oxygen in the area of the reaction. Nasty shit.

you're pathetic. in general. so stuff it.

Impressive response. It is all flamey and everything.

If the terrorists want to use chlorine as a weapon I suggest mixing it at roughly a 1:1 ratio with phosphoric acid. Makes a pretty yellow cloud and consumes all oxygen in the area of the reaction. Nasty shit.

You suggest this to the guys that are already terrorists or the American troops that would BECOME terrorists by doing this?

This post has been quoted because it's the best one I have seen in ages.
Why thank you.
If the terrorists want to use chlorine as a weapon I suggest mixing it at roughly a 1:1 ratio with phosphoric acid. Makes a pretty yellow cloud and consumes all oxygen in the area of the reaction. Nasty shit.

It scares me that you know such things. I'm going to run away now.

Why thank you.


It scares me that you know such things. I'm going to run away now.

I used to work with chlorine and phosphoric acid. I'm well aware of what happens when some dumbass mixes them. There' just no more air, you can breath all you want, but you're not doing anything but slowly suffocating.

Why thank you.

It scares me that you know such things. I'm going to run away now.

Try learning toxicology - it's even more scary.

You suggest this to the guys that are already terrorists or the American troops that would BECOME terrorists by doing this?

Merely saying right now they're wasting chlorine gas with an attack that's merely annoying, when they could use it with another very common chemical to make it actual lethal.

Merely saying right now they're wasting chlorine gas with an attack that's merely annoying, when they could use it with another very common chemical to make it actual lethal.

So common that anyone who drinks Coke is ingesting it.

So common that anyone who drinks Coke is ingesting it.

Well, a massively watered down form yeah. Phosphoric acid itself isn't very strong, you can hold a puddle of it in the palm of your hand and it doesn't so much as itch.

Merely saying right now they're wasting chlorine gas with an attack that's merely annoying, when they could use it with another very common chemical to make it actual lethal.

Well one can't expect terrorists to always be efficient...

So common that anyone who drinks Coke is ingesting it.

COOL! I have WMDs in my stomach! :D

COOL! I have WMDs in my stomach! :D

He's a terrorist! Get him!
*lynches*

COOL! I have WMDs in my stomach! :D

How long until a US led invasion of Heikoku's stomach?

COOL! I have WMDs in my stomach! :D

The phosphoric acid in Coke makes an excellent bug remover for car windshields.

Technically, since DU gets powdered and subsequently being mixed into the local terrain, not to mention it being an alpha emitter IIRC, it could be considered to be a radiological weapon. A somewhat dispersed dirty bomb so to speak.



Oh come now DK, we all know the inverse is true to you. You'd never accuse the US of doing anything bad. Cause it so ruin those dreadfully expensive rose glasses of yours.

DU isn't all that radioactive. It certainly might raise your risk for cancer, but not by all that much. It's a heavy metal though, and kinda toxic.

How long until a US led invasion of Heikoku's stomach?

The insurgent cells would be ACTUAL cells. :p

Oh come now DK, we all know the inverse is true to you. You'd never accuse the US of doing anything bad. Cause it so ruin those dreadfully expensive rose glasses of yours.

Are yours any less tinted?

DU isn't all that radioactive. It certainly might raise your risk for cancer, but not by all that much. It's a heavy metal though, and kinda toxic.

So is tungsten, which is loudly touted by the opponents of DU as the solution to the problem.

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/tungsten/howtungsten17.htm

Tungsten is also a toxic heavy metal.

DU isn't all that radioactive. It certainly might raise your risk for cancer, but not by all that much. It's a heavy metal though, and kinda toxic.

Alpha emitter's generally aren't dangerous unless they're inside you. Which was the point when I mentioned DU getting powdered since you'd end up breathing the stuff.

Are yours any less tinted?

They tend to be tinted black. And usually, I find that's not even enough to get a real picture of the world since it's a lot darker.

So is tungsten, which is loudly touted by the opponents of DU as the solution to the problem.

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/tungsten/howtungsten17.htm

Tungsten is also a toxic heavy metal.

Yeah. I have no real problem with DU being used in warfare. The advantage of Tungsten is that people don't freak out because it's radioactive. Nevermind that if they've got a granite countertop in their kitchen they're preparing their food on a surface that contains radioactive minerals. Igneous rocks (that is basalt or granite) can contain between 0.5 to four micrograms of uranium per gram of rock. Radiation is scary.

Alpha emitter's generally aren't dangerous unless they're inside you. Which was the point when I mentioned DU getting powdered since you'd end up breathing the stuff.



They tend to be tinted black. And usually, I find that's not even enough to get a real picture of the world since it's a lot darker.

It emits so few alpha particles over the course of a human lifetime though that it's not all that dangerous. The half life is what, some 4.5 billion years?

The same people who want to ban DU want to ban Tungsten
www.cadu.org.uk

Oh no, Moslems have WMD's of chlorine, what do we have aside the thousands of nukes up our asses. :p

Oh no, Moslems have WMD's of chlorine, what do we have aside the thousands of nukes up our asses. :p

I suppose if some Iraqi mixes a little bleach and ammonia then that would mean that the Moslems had gained chemical weapons and so the Iraq invasion was justified. It is all coming together! :eek:

I suppose if some Iraqi mixes a little bleach and ammonia then that would mean that the Moslems had gained chemical weapons and so the Iraq invasion was justified. It is all coming together! :eek:

Man, I hope so because I don't see one smiling Arab from Morocco to Iraq and I seem to be in the middle of their once historical Arab capital (Baghdad). Sucks to know history :p

I don't care what you call their organization. If we're going to have standards, then they apply to everyone - not just to the US.

Everyone.

Why?

Why not, then, follow the standards of a nation that doesn't have the horrible track-record of the US in recent years?

Oh no, Moslems have WMD's of chlorine, what do we have aside the thousands of nukes up our asses. :p

99 red balloons? :D

Man, I hope so because I don't see one smiling Arab from Morocco to Iraq and I seem to be in the middle of their once historical Arab capital (Baghdad). Sucks to know history :p

So I guess they aren't thankful for their "liberation", eh? Well I suppose you could somehow turn their attention to the ancient Mongol hordes for ruining their Islamic Empire and sacking Baghdad. Blame Mongolia!

Thinking outside the box, you know. ;)

99 red balloons? :D

"MY BALLOONS!! HE'S STEALING MY BALLOONS!!"

:D

..........I heard a truck carrying chlorine crashed and blew up or got caught up in the cross fire or something......

So I guess they aren't thankful for their "liberation", eh? Well I suppose you could somehow turn their attention to the ancient Mongol hordes for ruining their Islamic Empire and sacking Baghdad. Blame Mongolia!

Thinking outside the box, you know. ;)

Osama remembers the Sack of Baghdad by the Mongols. He wrote a whole mournful piece on it, and wants payback.

Not joking.