Al Quaeda doesn't exist...

antiatty

This archived title is what drew me to your forums.. where is that guy who believed Zarqawi was a fabrication of the CIA from this past fall? I have some photos I need to send him.

wilmar13

See what I am talking about guys? We have avoided cycling related talk so much that assclowns looking for their local Al Qaeda chapter on Google are directed to this site. Lets hope all the PhD's google is using to design the search algorithms just made a mistake.

darkboong

I suggest you take a careful look at the documentary "The Power of Nightmares", a series of programmes that were broadcast on Channel 4 here in the UK. As I recall there is zero evidence of Al Queda being in existance until the term was coined in a court hearing regarding the earlier (failed) WTC bombings.

Since then the label has stuck, and has been used consistently by the politicians and media to describe Islamic militants- regardless of their actual origin or status. Two events were pinned on Al Queda by the press and politicians, the first one being the Madrid bombings (that was also pinned on ETA), and the second were the London bombings. Investigation has subsequently revealed that there is no evidence of either bombings being linked to a group called "Al Queda".

Likewise Zarqawi has had a hell of a lot of stuff pinned on him. He'd have to be Superman to have pulled off a small fraction of the stunts and atrocities attributed to him by the Whitehouse and Pentagon. The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E.Lawrence gives you a some insight into how much time and effort is required to strike with stuff like IEDs (or Bombs as we called them for centuaries before Whitehouse and Pentagon press briefinds were invented). There is no way to reconcile hard reality with the superman status bestowed on the man by Bush and his gang. That is not surprising of course because Bush and his gang firmly believe that they can change reality at will. For a classic example check out his ignore it then deny it and it will go away approach to Global Warming.

You are welcome to cling onto your Tinfoil hat and your conspiracy theories regarding a massive liberal coverup for Militant Islamic Fundamentalists, but quite frankly you're going to get a very nasty shock should the real world bite you on the ass. I for one won't be offering my services to reacquaint the shell-shocked Government Press Briefing Junkies with reality, it is unrewarding work at the best of times.

__________________
Free Beer !

antiatty

everyone believes global warming exists, don't be preposterous. Some just don't think its a direct result of mankind and CO2 emissions from gas engines or coal plants.
Lets assume that concept is correct for a brief moment though --
If liberals had embraced nuclear energy and allowed it decades ago instead of protesting and coming up with legislation preventing it we might not be in the position we're now in.
The real issue though is which countries should be cleaning up their act. China and Russia are by far the worst offenders yet the US is focused on as being the worst.

Zarqawi did mastermind an organization bent on creating civil war in Iraq. 2 bombs a day isn't difficult to organize over time with moderate support from hundreds of people jealous about not being in power anymore.

Typical for liberals, bash the US.

darkboong

ROTFL. No, we'd be up to our armpits in nuclear waste. See Drigg in Cumbria (UK) for example. I grew up downwind of Sellafield (aka Windscale), the bomb factory that everyone thinks does a nice job of making power and reprocessing fuel. The same plant that lost 1,000 tonnes of Nitric acid laced with 180kg of bomb grade Plutonium. They didn't bother checking that the amount they pumped from one tank into another added up.

You want more of that ? Maybe another couple of Three Mile islands ? How about a Chernobyl ?



ROTFL. Not that simple doofus.



I am an Anarchist.

__________________
Free Beer !

antiatty

ROTFL. Not that simple doofus.

wow - getting personal early on in a discussion.. nice, and again, typical of liberals.

more than 4000 people a year die in mining accidents alone how many have died in nuclear accidents?

fewer than 10. you do the math (if you've reached that level in school yet).

darkboong

Tell that to the Chernobyl victims. Or how about the Sandia victims ? When it's applied deliberately the results are unimaginably foul (Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

There's a serious problem with storing waste. If that was adaquately addressed I might endorse Nuclear power. Even at the relatively small proportion of nuclear power they are finding waste levels unmanagable. It won't get any better IF nuclear power becomes the primary source of power.

Come back when you have a viable solution for storing waste that is too hot to get within 30m of for 1,000 years. Waving your hands ain't good enough either.

__________________
Free Beer !

antiatty

Geez.. not much of a history buff are you? We killed more people fire bombing Tokyo than both atomic blasts put together.

Your assesment of heat from waste being too hot to get within 30 meters of is a bit odd. How in the hell is it transferred now if thats the case? its trucked by the DOE all over the country and 30 meters would cover both sides of a two lane road. Check your source, it might be 30 inches.. seems like water would cool that off though.

Here's an article by someone that, unlike you, has thought through the process and written a paper on it. (check his age out)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/s...ial/yucca2.html

limerickman

Th death toll from the two nuclear explosions in Japan carried out by the USA is
not confined to the immediate period of July 1945.

The increase in the mortality rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - as result of cancers derived from the radiation burst from those two bombs - is still with us today.

The British medical journal - The Lancet - did a very good paper on the effect of nuclear radiation exposure some years back.
See here:
www.holliseden.com/resources/The-Lancet.pdf

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Weisse Luft

Chernobyl and other Soviet nuclear plants operated with a serious design flaw, that being graphite moderated and no secondary containment. Why? Cheaper.

Western water moderated plants CANNOT run away because the moderator is also the coolant. Lose the coolant and the moderator goes too. The neutrons are then moving too fast to sustain chain reaction and it stops WITHOUT CONTROL RODS INTERVENTION. But in US designed plants, the control rods will punch through the worst thermally degraded core which is waht happened at TMI. No run away, no explosion.

Now Chernobyl's graphite moderated reactor went critical, core distorted, rods couldn't be inserted and the graphite vaporized, forming a pyrophoric cloud of super-hot carbon vapor. Blowing the single containment caused the carbon vapor to hit air where it exploded with contact.

More lives were SAVED by bombing Japan in August of 1945, forcing a early end to the war. Japan was prepared to fight on to the last person.

darkboong

That still doesn't make it OK. If Nuclear Weapons are not a problem, why the fuss over Iran and Korea at the moment ?



It's not my assessment, see Sandia, Drigg, BNFL, AEA etc...



Generally that kind of waste ain't transported around the country (as far as I know + hope). It's buried in on-site or near-site containment facilities. Some of that stuff is so radioactive they can't even keep robots alive long enough to handle it. It also has the rather nasty side-effect of attacking the material around it, to the point where they are worried about the structure of the containment facilities collapsing within 50 years, let alone 1000.



The link is broke. Yuccca ain't exactly without controversy is it ? Plus how on earth can we afford to build enough storage space and where are we going to find the sites *IF* Nuclear Power becomes the main energy source ? We'll run out of safe places to stash it. Geologically stable ground is at a premium.

__________________
Free Beer !