This is fucked up! | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 349 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614103
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
This is fucked up!
 

offline Archrival on 2003-11-17 08:39 [#00953357]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker



http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 08:40 [#00953359]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker



linkey


 

offline Archrival on 2003-11-17 08:42 [#00953361]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker



I'm pretty sure the Brits have used depleted uranium shells
too, but we have since stopeed -- not trying to defend the
UK or anything

And we know this shit just since the end of 2000, they
didn´t said a thing before. Fuck, during that time I was in
Kosovo, but they said to us that they didn´t used this
ammunition in our area.
By the way, the US are now trying to make mini-nukes, so
that they can use that as a tactical weapon. I think they
should show those pictures to everybody, because that will
happen if nobody will stop that. When the US will have those
mini-nukes, there won´t be long time untill a lot of other
nations will get that shit, too. Now, that´s a great
outlook for the Future!


 

offline nlogax from oh, you must be the brains (Norway) on 2003-11-17 08:43 [#00953363]
Points: 4653 Status: Regular



pretty fuk'd up, yeah


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 08:44 [#00953366]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker



shit. that really distrubed me


 

offline nlogax from oh, you must be the brains (Norway) on 2003-11-17 08:46 [#00953368]
Points: 4653 Status: Regular



if only I had a sniper rifle....


 

offline corrupted-girl on 2003-11-17 08:47 [#00953371]
Points: 8469 Status: Regular



ehh


 

offline nlogax from oh, you must be the brains (Norway) on 2003-11-17 08:48 [#00953373]
Points: 4653 Status: Regular | Followup to corrupted-girl: #00953371



I couldn't have said it better myself.


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 08:51 [#00953377]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to nlogax: #00953368



I was thinking about that the other day. Remember the
Washington sniper? Protection against someone with a real
agenda is nearly impossible. I know it's a particularly
horrible thing to say but I'm truely angered by the fact
that random cranks like that guy can blow away inocent
civilians when there are a plethora of such individuals to
take out...


 

offline Archrival on 2003-11-17 08:58 [#00953383]
Points: 4265 Status: Lurker



I got this link from a friend and DAM did I get sick or
WHAT!!??This type of shit just make me hate those top
freemason goverment bitches even more.
fuck illuminati and fuck the bush administration. fuck m
all.
You know i dont hate americans i got mad love for you... i
just hate those devils at the top, destroying the world.

This is a quote from my friend from Croatia:

"And we know this shit just since the end of 2000, they
didn´t said a thing before. Fuck, during that time I was in

Kosovo, but they said to us that they didn´t used this
ammunition in our area.
By the way, the US are now trying to make mini-nukes, so
that they can use that as a tactical weapon. I think they
should show those pictures to everybody, because that will
happen if nobody will stop that. When the US will have those

mini-nukes, there won´t be long time untill a lot of other

nations will get that shit, too. Now, that´s a great
outlook
for the Future!"



 

offline nlogax from oh, you must be the brains (Norway) on 2003-11-17 08:58 [#00953384]
Points: 4653 Status: Regular | Followup to TonyFish: #00953377



yeah, true dat!
It'd be different if their infantile sniper activites
actually were directed at someone a bit more important, say,
for instance, ah, let's say George W Bush just for the fuck
of it.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-11-17 08:59 [#00953386]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Tactical Nukes are really nasty as the comparatively small
area of destruction means there is none of the stigma
associated with "proper" nuclear war. However, the bombsight
and the surrounding few miles get all the unpleasent effects
of a normal nuclear bomb, not to mention run off of
radiation into rivers etc. that can affect people miles
downstream :-/


 

offline Oddioblender from Fort Worth, TX (United States) on 2003-11-17 09:23 [#00953426]
Points: 9601 Status: Lurker



oh my god..... i...

i am not just shocked by this. i am REPULSED. OUTRAGED.
this... this is SICK. it's disgusting, it's cruel, and it's
downright unholy.

*is speechless*

i feel terrible.... sick even....


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 09:24 [#00953428]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to Oddioblender: #00953426



yes. join the club


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2003-11-17 09:25 [#00953432]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



What a stupid flash animation. Boring visuals, the music
choice was really uninspired. Basically it was all a pile
of shit anyway...ok so DU was used, but the increase in
cancer rates in Iraq is more due to the carcenogenic agents
and chemical weapons the Hussain used on his own people.

Tactical Nuclear weapons are more a deterrent (publicity
stunt) to fool the American people who are getting scared of
China, Korea etc.


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2003-11-17 10:00 [#00953470]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular | Followup to ecnadniarb: #00953432



Ho ho! I thought it was pretty silly too..


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2003-11-17 10:04 [#00953474]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular | Followup to Archrival: #00953361



what were you doin in kosovo?


 

offline AK47 on 2003-11-17 10:27 [#00953509]
Points: 386 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #00953432



DU

One of the many articles published on the net....the word
cluster bomb mean anything to you?


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2003-11-17 10:33 [#00953518]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to AK47: #00953509 | Show recordbag



Yes Cluster Bombs are cool...when I grow up I want to use
them myself.

Basically I don't really care...my aim in life is to eat,
drink, fuck and be merry. Selfish? Probably...Do I care?
No...


 

offline BlatantEcho from All over (United States) on 2003-11-17 10:37 [#00953522]
Points: 7210 Status: Lurker



Depleated Uranium is about as harmless as UV A & B rays from
the sun.

Sorry


 

offline AK47 on 2003-11-17 10:58 [#00953543]
Points: 386 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00953522



Funny that melonoma is a cancer, my father died of it...as
for DU its well and good just feel free to try and sell it
as the next wonderbread to the veterens suffering from Gulf
War Syndrome and see how far you get with your line of
reasoning


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 11:01 [#00953545]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00953522



tell that to this little fella



 

offline AK47 on 2003-11-17 11:03 [#00953549]
Points: 386 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #00953518



Fuck yeah the cluster bombs are cool, the bomblets look like
cans of fizzy drinks that kids want to take them home and
blow their whole families up with, talk about a gift that
keeps on giving


 

offline purlieu from Leeds (United Kingdom) on 2003-11-17 11:09 [#00953561]
Points: 1228 Status: Lurker



If they had something important to say, they wouldn't wrap
it up in such shockcore-like propoganda.
LOOK AT ALL THE MANGLED BABIES AND NASTY MUSIC AND RED
WRITING! IT MUST BE TRUE!


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 11:12 [#00953567]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to purlieu: #00953561



which is why we search on google to verify their claims.


 

offline purlieu from Leeds (United Kingdom) on 2003-11-17 11:16 [#00953575]
Points: 1228 Status: Lurker



Because a Google search, too, is reliable.


 

offline AK47 on 2003-11-17 11:18 [#00953578]
Points: 386 Status: Lurker | Followup to purlieu: #00953561



Oh you mean propaganda like

1. Saddam is a threat to the world peace
2. He's actively building and set to deploy WMDs
3. He is directly responsible for WTO bombings
4. He's arming terrorists with WMD and nukes

You mean that kind of propaganda? Yeah the President of the
World's God Police and his ex-imperalist nation's lapdog of
a lackey Prime Minister said it over and over again so gosh
darn it must be true!


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 11:22 [#00953582]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to purlieu: #00953575



when you know how to differentiate between reliable,
authoratative sources and blatant propaganda, yes it is.


 

offline purlieu from Leeds (United Kingdom) on 2003-11-17 11:25 [#00953587]
Points: 1228 Status: Lurker



AK47 - what are you talking about? All I said was it was
presented in a propoganda-like way, thus I was suspicious of
it. No need to get worked up.

TonyFish - can you be 100% sure that one source is reliable?
Really?


 

offline -V- from Ensenada Drive on 2003-11-17 11:29 [#00953596]
Points: 1452 Status: Lurker



It does throw around a lot of statistics without citing any
sources.


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 11:32 [#00953599]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to purlieu: #00953587



of course not but you can be reasonably sure. I wrote a
paper on online information validation a while back. I'll
post it when I'm next near my desktop.


 

offline evolume from seattle (United States) on 2003-11-17 11:48 [#00953621]
Points: 10965 Status: Regular | Followup to -V-: #00953596



i was going to say the same thing.

i don't doubt that DU is harmful but i'd like to at least
see the sources from which these people are getting their
statistics. Just because something is distributed freely on
the internet, doesn't necessarily make it true. in fact, i
would wager that, since their sources are suspiciously
absent, their statistics are probably exaggerated.

but if anyone can find some reliable sources, i'd be
interested in reading the original articles.


 

offline evolume from seattle (United States) on 2003-11-17 12:01 [#00953649]
Points: 10965 Status: Regular



i have looked over the entire bushflash site and could find
no bibliography citing any information sources. I did find,
however, an area where you can donate money and a disclaimer
that:
"All funds recieved via donations and store sales are
used exclusively for the maintenance of this site.
"Maintenance", in this case, includes, but is not limited
to:

1. Creation of animation
2. Writing HTML
3. Creation of bitmap images for use in said site and
animations.
4. Purchase of web hosting services
5. Purchase of software/hardware that allows continued
operation of said site, and the activities listed in Items
1-3, above"


the phrase "...but not limited to" i find quite suspicious.
even though the guy claims that a statement showing all
expenditures is available upon request.

there is also a note at the bottom of his page saying "I
AM FOR HIRE- RELATIVELY CHEAP! DROP ME A LINE FOR PRICES AND
DETAILS!"


just gotta be careful who you believe because EVERYONE has
an agenda.



 

offline BlatantEcho from All over (United States) on 2003-11-17 12:03 [#00953652]
Points: 7210 Status: Lurker



The Royal Society considered the effects negligable in their
8 page report.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-168.pdf

they did mention that prolonged heavy exposure could be
unhealthy, but was not proven.

This would be pertinent to those handling uranium munitions
manufacturing daily for months at a time.

------
the sum was, no health risks proven, but more science will
say for sure to what degree it is safe.


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-11-17 12:08 [#00953665]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00953652



oooh THE ROYAL SOCIETY...
just their name leaves me brimming me with confidence about
their objectivity and their compassion for the plight of the
victims...


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 12:14 [#00953676]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to flea: #00953665



quite.
Also given that the UK play a part in this..
I'd rather see the findings of an international commission
or something.


 

offline evolume from seattle (United States) on 2003-11-17 12:14 [#00953680]
Points: 10965 Status: Regular | Followup to flea: #00953665



well it's actually a pretty informative article. even if
they are not purely objective, they admit that there could
be health issues but they point out the FACT that to
determine health risks such as increased instance of
cancers, longitudinal studies must be conducted. or at
least, studies conducted in a greater time frame that just a
few months or years. in otherwords, it is far to soon to
determine that any supposed increase in cancer rates is a
direct result of use of DU. it may well be, but as there is
no real evidence, it makes the statistics presented in that
flash animation highly suspect.


 

offline evolume from seattle (United States) on 2003-11-17 12:17 [#00953689]
Points: 10965 Status: Regular | Followup to TonyFish: #00953676



yeah so let's have it. it's an interesting debate that
warrants greater research. if you find anything, I, for
one, would be interested in reading it.

are there any articles on Reuters or anything? they are
supposed to be non biased...


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-11-17 12:26 [#00953720]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00953652



Okay one last time...

The DU...burn and turned to powder that became a part of the
desert landscape and dust which is then ingested and
inhaled...

Is that a long enough exposure?

Ingesting and Inhaling it?...having it swimming inside your
body?

Dr. Helen Caldicott's book "THE NEW NUCLEAR DANGER" has vast
sections dedicated to DU, and is thoroughly researched and
refrenced to the eyeballs..if you can really be
bothered..feel free to go down to your local book store and
read the Appendix and list of sources...right there on the
shelf...turn the book over and go through the last few
pages...it's all there...

here are her credentials..

The world s leading spokesperson for the antinuclear
movement, Dr. Helen Caldicott is the founder of the Nobel
Prize winning Physicians for Social Responsibility, and
herself a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Both the
Smithsonian Institute and Ladies Home Journal named her one
of the most Influential Women of the Twentieth Century, and
she has honorary degrees from nineteen universities. She
divides her time between Australia and the United States,
where she has devoted the last thirty years to an
international campaign to educate the public about the
medical hazards of the nuclear age.



 

offline happy cycling from berlin on 2003-11-17 12:33 [#00953740]
Points: 2786 Status: Regular



i think i saw bat boy in there.....


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 13:21 [#00953826]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to evolume: #00953689



Hey I'm writing a thesis here. No time.


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2003-11-17 13:22 [#00953828]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Crazy stuff. Heh, not to be insensitive, but what's the
artist/track being played during that vid?


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-17 13:24 [#00953830]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker



it says at the end doesn't it?


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-11-17 13:27 [#00953833]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker



fuck, i didn't watch the whole thing. i don't like to see
deformed babies


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-19 07:47 [#00956962]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker



for those still interested:
link
link2

link3



 

offline BlatantEcho from All over (United States) on 2003-11-19 09:33 [#00957046]
Points: 7210 Status: Lurker



"The world s leading spokesperson for the antinuclear
movement"

sorry, just as biased as anyone.


 

offline TonyFish from the realm of our dreams on 2003-11-19 09:38 [#00957051]
Points: 3349 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00957046



I wasn't posting them as examples of authoritative sources
and yes you are right all of the links in this thread are
biased to some extent.
I have yet to see anything official or unbiased on the
mater.


 

offline aneurySm from Ypsilanti (United States) on 2003-11-19 09:41 [#00957053]
Points: 1701 Status: Lurker



i swear i;ve seen at least two of those deformed baby
pictures before on rotten.com


 

offline Oddioblender from Fort Worth, TX (United States) on 2003-11-19 09:45 [#00957055]
Points: 9601 Status: Lurker



this thread has WAY too much anger for me now.


 

offline godataloss from Cleveland (United States) on 2003-11-20 10:24 [#00958396]
Points: 1416 Status: Lurker



What happened to the good old days when we killed eachother
with blunt objects?


 


Messageboard index