So sorry about that poor Korean man

"Thomas F. Unke" wrote in message
...
me writes:


No. I'm just some guy who's slept very poorly the past week thinking
about the whole tragedy,

Have you also slept very poorly thinking of the ten thousands of
Iraqis killed by American cluster bombs, depleted uranium, snipers who
shoot "for fun" from high buildings at women and children, the recent
bombing of innocents in Fallujah, the victims of the wedding massacre,
the poor tortured to death and so on?


But this all crap.

There weren't "tens of thousands" of Ameicans killed by cluster bombs.
Amnesty International believes the whole invasion itself cost 4,500 Iraqis
soldiers lives, and a few hundred civilians. Compare with the 500,000
executed by Saddam (300,000 dug up already) and the 1.4 million killed in
the Iran and Kuwait conflicts (both started by Saddam).

There is no evidence of any deaths at all from depleted Uranium. None.
Depleted Uranium is quite safe; almost every large plane you have ever flown
in uses it as wing ballast; its used widely in Doctor and Dentists surgeries
as (ironically) a shield against X-Rays.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ for example, if you
would like to learn some very basic scietific facts (I guess not,
considering the accuracy of everything else you write).

Snipers who shot for fun at women and children? You are talking Al Queda I
assume?

Bombing of innocents at a wedding party? They were shooting AK47s in the air
towards US planes. A horrible mistake, but thats all it was - and hardly
tens of thousands of people (or the 500,000 killed by Saddam).

Poor tortured to death? News to me - unless you mean Saddam again, of
course; he did it all the time.


The Americans are laying down the lives of their sons and daughters every
day to bring freedom to people living in hell for 20 years, and you spit in
their face.

"Thomas F. Unke" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" writes:


But this all crap.

In your believe.


There weren't "tens of thousands" of Ameicans killed by cluster bombs.

Not Americans, it was Iraqis, as I wrote. The number of civilians
killed, conservatively estimated as not every victim can be counted,
is around ten thousand alone. Not counting the thousands of soldiers
who fell for the defence of their country.

Sorry, I meant Iraqis.

Hmmm ... ten thousand. 500,000 killed by Saddam.


Source:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

executed by Saddam (300,000 dug up already) and the 1.4 million killed
in
the Iran and Kuwait conflicts (both started by Saddam).

The Iran war was started by Saddam in close cooperation with the US. I
always love to see the following photo of the Asses of Evil:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


So Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1983. This is the best evidence for
"close co-operation between the US and Iraq". LOL



There is no evidence of any deaths at all from depleted Uranium. None.
Depleted Uranium is quite safe; almost every large plane you have ever
flown
in uses it as wing ballast; its used widely in Doctor and Dentists
surgeries
as (ironically) a shield against X-Rays.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ for example, if you
would like to learn some very basic scietific facts (I guess not,
considering the accuracy of everything else you write).

Oh dear, can't you be more funny?

Must I explain you the difference of a ballistic object and a
dentist's shield?

I will give you some basic teaching to enlighten your mind:

When a projectile hits a target, 70% of its depleted uranium burns
and oxidizes, bursting into highly toxic, radioactive micro particles.
Being so tiny, these particles can be ingested or inhaled after being
deposited on the ground or carried kilometres away by the wind, the food
chain or water. A 1995 technical report issued by the American Army
indicates that "if depleted uranium enters the body, it has the
potentiality of causing serious medical consequences. The associated risk
is both chemical and radiological". Deposited in the lungs or kidneys,
uranium 238 and products from its decay (thorium 234, protactinium and
other uranium isotopes) give off alpha and beta radiations which cause
cell
death and genetic mutations causing cancer in exposed individuals and
genetic abnormalities in their descendents over the years.
In its 110,000 air raids against Iraq, the US A-10 Warthog aircraft
launched 940,000 depleted uranium projectiles, and in the land
offensive, its M60, M1 and M1A1 tanks fired a further 4,000 larger caliber
also uranium projectiles.

Blah blah yeah funnily enough I did my Honours degree in physics and could
write a similar piece about water has a half life of billions of years
(which it does) and its potentially deadly. Except I wouldn't mangle some
common terms of trade in physics such as "ballistic".

Again, the underlying problem is that hasn't actually seemed to cause a
single death anywhere, despite the WHO investigations, which kinda makes
that whole argument argument of yours pretty stupid.



Snipers who shot for fun at women and children? You are talking Al Queda
I
assume?

I assume that you cannot see the films and documentations we in the
Free World have access to.


Yeah right, you live in some Arab country with a free press?



Bombing of innocents at a wedding party? They were shooting AK47s in the
air

Normal at wedding partys in the Arab world. And normal for the US
thugs to shoot before thinking.


So by saying "shoot before thinking" you are admitting that it wasn't
premeditated - it was an accident? Doesn't this undercut your argument that
they acted willfully?



Poor tortured to death? News to me - unless you mean Saddam again, of
course; he did it all the time.

You are right to compare Saddam with the US invadors. But you could do
some more research in this case:


http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=2076


Unsubstantiated reports of unnamed people provided by an unknown reporter
quoting from an unnamed report. Best you can do?


The Americans are laying down the lives of their sons and daughters
every
day to bring freedom to people living in hell for 20 years, and you spit
in
their face.

I just like to disturb your little world of FoxNews. Your "sons and
daughters" are indeed illegal invadors and the scum of the world. Like
Saddam, Bin Laden and all the other former CIA thugs.


Well, you say that, but you provide no reasons that I can understand.

And then you say Saddam and Bin Laden are bad, but the US got rid of one and
is hunting down the other, so the US can't be all bad. Further, whatever
role the US may have had in the rise of militant Islam, the best thing that
the US can do for the Iraqi people and the world as a whole is to bring
democracy to Iraq.


But an anecdote about my recent travel: I met a number of Americans
who where ashamed of what the US military is doing, and even felt the
need to apoligize fot that. This makes me feel confident that some
day, the US will be a member of the civilized world again.



And so what if many Americans disagree with the Iraq policy? I'm not an
American, but they get my 100% support. Saying that other people (even
Americans!) agree with you is hardly a valid argument, is it?

You are a crank, aren't you? That's why you post in irelevant newsgroups
like this, trolling for a response.

Peter Webb wrote:

You are a crank, aren't you? That's why you post in irelevant newsgroups
like this, trolling for a response.

the troll is you, obviously...

"bring democracy to iraq" indeed... maybe dubya could bring a brain to
your part of the world and hope you stumble across it... but he'd have
to be able to find australia on a map and you'd have to know what you
were looking at... both seem highly unlikely...

michael

"Thomas F. Unke" schreef in bericht
...
me writes:


No. I'm just some guy who's slept very poorly the past week thinking
about the whole tragedy,

Have you also slept very poorly thinking of the ten thousands of
Iraqis killed by American cluster bombs,


I didn't...
why should I deplore the death of terrorist muslims ?

Peter Webb wrote:
Hmmm ... ten thousand. 500,000 killed by Saddam.

Recall that Saddam had a bit of a head start.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"Thomas F. Unke" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" writes:

Hmmm ... ten thousand. 500,000 killed by Saddam.

I see your logic. And because Saddam killed some high number of people
in over 20 years, the US can do so too as long they remain a bit
under him?


So Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1983. This is the best evidence
for
"close co-operation between the US and Iraq". LOL

If you read the whole article, you wouldn't laugh. Everybody who has
slight interest in politics knows the close involvment of the US and
Saddam during the Iran war. They even helped him with the chemical
warfare when Iran gained strength during the war.

Got it. "Everybody who has slight interest knows". Not evidence of what you
are saying as such; just a statement that everybody agrees with you so you
must be right. Excellent debating tactic; my nine year old daughter is also
a master at this one.




Blah blah yeah funnily enough I did my Honours degree in physics and
could
write a similar piece about water has a half life of billions of years
(which it does) and its potentially deadly. Except I wouldn't mangle
some
common terms of trade in physics such as "ballistic".

Again, the underlying problem is that hasn't actually seemed to cause a
single death anywhere, despite the WHO investigations, which kinda makes
that whole argument argument of yours pretty stupid.

So, what's your point? How much does a "honors degree in physics"
qualify you of talking about the impact of depleted uranium on the
health of people?

No, it qualifies me to analyse your mangled physics dissertation and realise
that you (or whoever wrote it originally) knows **** about physics and
radioactive decay specifically.


Boy, you even don't understand the difference between a ballistic
object and a dentist shield on men's health, so I won't further
comment.

But that "pretty stupid" argument is repeated by the US military
warnings for their own soldiers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/wo...ce10&ei=5 070

Pretty stupid they must be, ey?

The strongest language they use is "depleted uranium ... posed possible
health risks". No specific health risks are described, no deaths except for
one possible death of one soldier is mentioned. Note that it also says
"radiation, which is said to be weak in the employed form of depleted
uranium" is not considered a risk - your whole diatribe was about
radioactive decay, alpha particles, beta particles etc (remember - you
snipped that part - perhaps you felt a little embarassed by its amateurish
analysis). Going to ignore that your own sources directly contradict the
argument you put forward?

Note that the subsequent World Health Organisation report (which I provided
a link for) identified zero deaths and essentially zero risk from DU in this
battlefield. So much for the POSSIBLE risks that were identified years
earlier.




Yeah right, you live in some Arab country with a free press?

I live in a free country whose journalists could film in Fallujah the
US snipers who were shooting at innocent people in the streets.




You believe CNN, BBC are censored?

Maybe its just that they check their facts a little better than web sites
called "america-is-satan.com" or whatever it was that you linked to for your
last sensational "fact".



http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=2076


Unsubstantiated reports of unnamed people provided by an unknown
reporter
quoting from an unnamed report. Best you can do?

These reports are much more substantiated than your baseless drivel
here. You could do more research and you find more reports on the same
subject.


Ohhh, I could do research and find more reports backing your position? But
if they exist, why did you use unsubstantiated reports of unnamed people
provided by an unknown reporter quoting from an unnamed report?

Do you really think this is a very good argument - that I could find reasons
you are right if I tried harder?


role the US may have had in the rise of militant Islam, the best
thing that the US can do for the Iraqi people and the world as a
whole is to bring democracy to Iraq.

You really believe every nonsense, don't you?

In the past up to now, there were few bloody dictatorships in the
world which were not sponsored by the US. And you really believe they
bring "democracy"? If so, why don't they listen to the Iraqi people
and leave the country at once?


Because it would descend into bloody civil war. Duh.

Do you think a state which keeps several secret prison camps
worldwide, where there is no judge, no lawyer, where torture is common
- such a state brings "democracy"?

You certainly have to learn the basics of democracy first.


The USA is the biggest defender of democracy in the world. That Europe
(including all of Western and Eastern Europe and Russia) and East Asia
(including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) are democracies is because of the
efforts of the USA.

And, anyway, this argument is irelevant. You may think that Iran or Jordan
or Libya are more democratic, but I don't see them laying down their lives
to try and give the Iraqi people a future with hope.


You are a crank, aren't you?

When you have no argument, you must resort to name calling? Well, we
have seen why you deserve a "honors degree" ;-)

That's why you post in irelevant newsgroups
like this, trolling for a response.

Well, I see you posting here in a irrelevant newsgroup. But logic is
not really your strong point, isn't it?


You trolled, I only responded. But you are right, talking to you is a waste
of time.

me wrote:

As from now, any place between Istanbul and Rangoon is strictly
off-limits, except for Nepal, South India, China (except for
Xinxiang), Thailand, Indochina and North-East Asia. So is all of
Africa north of the Equator.

Oh well. We were in Egypt last December and experienced absolutely no
problems. Not sure if this was because we're not Americans, or because
people there are simply friendly.

In any case, I'll be again in a muslim country (Malaysia) at the end of
the year.
--

Alfred Molon

http://www.molon.de/Galleries.htm - Photos from Myanmar, Brunei,
Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Egypt, Austria, Budapest and
Portugal

Peter Webb wrote:

The Americans are laying down the lives of their sons and daughters every
day to bring freedom to people living in hell for 20 years, and you spit in
their face.

As has been repeated countless times, they are in Iraq because of the
Iraqi oil.
--

Alfred Molon

http://www.molon.de/Galleries.htm - Photos from Myanmar, Brunei,
Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Egypt, Austria, Budapest and
Portugal

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

The Americans are laying down the lives of their sons and daughters every
day to bring freedom to people living in hell for 20 years, and you spit
in
their face.

As has been repeated countless times, they are in Iraq because of the
Iraqi oil.
--

As has been said many times, but for which not one single shred of evidence
has been presented.

"Thomas F. Unke" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" writes:

must be right. Excellent debating tactic; my nine year old daughter
is also a master at this one.

Boy, I gave you the link. If you can't read, I cannot help you. Ask
your nine year old daughter to help you understand the article and
then come back here.


The article said nothing. You snipped what you actually wrote; I don't blame
you. Your subesquent argument was (and here I barely paraphrase) "everybody
who knows anything knows I'm right".


qualify you of talking about the impact of depleted uranium on the
health of people?

No, it qualifies me to analyse your mangled physics dissertation and
realise
that you (or whoever wrote it originally) knows **** about physics and
radioactive decay specifically.

Except for name calling, you didn't write any analysis to this. Come
back, when you learned to argue.


I didn't have to provide any analysis. Your dissertation was about the
radioactive effects of Deplted Uranium. I pointed out that it wasn't
radioactive. I provided a link to the world health organisation who said it
wasn't radioactive. A WHO team investigating war sites determined that there
was no health risk, and again pointed out DU wasn't radioactive.

The strongest language they use is "depleted uranium ... posed
possible health risks". No specific health risks are described, no
deaths except for one possible death of one soldier is mentioned.

A possible death of one soldier is no health risk for you? Oh, boy,
who gave you this honors degree. I doubt you have even mastered high
school.

"health risk" doesn't mean that you die instantly. Cell mutations and
later cancer from that take a long time, often 5-10 years and
more.


And then you posted your own link, and even it pointed out that DU is not
radioactive!

All this stuff about cell mutations and cancers and all that stuff may scare
the stupid and ignorant, but form the fact that Depleted Uranium is not
particularly radioactive, and there is no evidence that it is harmful -
except, or course, in its design function of blowing up tanks. Almost every
word you have written about DU could be written about lead, which is heavy
metal, toxic, etc etc and found in bullets.

And no, the possible death of one soldier of unknown causes doesn't
represent a public health risk. Not like the 500,000 Iraqis killed by
Saddam.

This is the worst that you can find? An American weapon implicated in the
possible death of one soldier? USA really is satan.

While soldiers normally stay only a short time in the contaminated
areas, the local population has a much higher risk.

Got it now?


But ... ahhhh ... that's not what the WHO (world health report) scientific
study determined ... and its not what the link you posted said ... you have
posted no evidence whatsoever that there is any risk to the local population
.... the only links you have posted contradict this by stating that the
danger was only possibly for people entering destroyed tanks ... and given
that your previous argument relies on aerosol exposure (which is short term)
it contradicts even your own psuedo-scientific explanation. So, no, I
haven't got it now.


Ohhh, I could do research and find more reports backing your
position? But if they exist, why did you use unsubstantiated reports
of unnamed people provided by an unknown reporter quoting from an
unnamed report?

Your reading abilities are severely limited. Ask your 9 years old
daughter what is the "Associated Press", probably she will help you
out.

I know what the "Associated Press" is.

But it was still an unsubstantiated report of unnamed people provided by an
unknown reporter quoting from an unnamed report. And when I pointed this
out, the best you could say is that I could find better sources if I looked.
I can only assume that as you have not posted anything better, this "story"
will always be nothing more than an unsubstantiated report of unnamed people
provided by an unknown reporter quoting from an unnamed report.

Again, it worries me that the worst thing you can find to say about the USA
in Iraq is something as flimsy as this ...


Because it would descend into bloody civil war. Duh.

What is already there. Duh.


No, its not. If the US pulled out the bloodshed would be far worse.

The USA is the biggest defender of democracy in the world.

Torture and prison camps without trial are part of democracy?


And, anyway, this argument is irelevant.

"irrelevant". My mother tongue is not English, but it is always a pain
when someone makes that kind of stupid spelling mistakes repeatedly.

My argument, that the USA is the biggest supporter of dictatorships,
is not irrelevant, but the reason of most troubles in the world.


You are right. Your mother tongue isn't English. I don't know what you are
saying. If it is "the USA is the cause of most trouble in the world", this
is your claim unsubstantiated by evidence. And please don't write back again
saying "well, everybody who knows anything about the world knows I am right"
as you have repeatedly in the past ... you have to provide actual evidence
for your position - just saying what you think is not evidence.

You trolled, I only responded. But you are right, talking to you is a
waste
of time.

Learn what the word "trolling" means. Your daughter may help. I didn't
start this thread, but responded, as you did. And I'm going to respond
again, when my bull**** detector rings again.