The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear disease > Comments

Nuclear disease : Comments

By Danny Kennedy, published 14/8/2006

The world's first atomic bombs exploded in Japan 61 years ago, reminding us of the dangers of the nuclear age.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Well said, Danny Kennedy!
We certainly need the kind of alternative media that is provided by this forum, because these facts and opinions don't get much of an airing in the mainstream media.
The secretive nature of the nuclear industry means that the public is largely unaware of the essential link between "peaceful" nuclear power, and the weapons industry. We can rightly worry about nuclear bombs, and nuclear terrorism, but what about the continued production and use of depleted uranium weapons? Used in both Gulf wars, depleted uranium continues to affect both Iraqi civilians, and the U.S. troops who used those weapons. Recent news items reveal that the U.S. has supplied depleted uranium weapons to Israel.
Australa should not follow John Howard this folly of uranium enrichment and nuclear power.
Nuclear as the cure for global warming? What an absurdity, seeing that nuclear power stations in Europe and U.S. are currently not operating due to hot weather! Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Monday, 14 August 2006 10:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For starters, I'm quite convinced Howard doesn't actually want a nuclear power plant built in Australia - I suspect he's just put that notion forward, so an enrichment program doesn't sound so bad by comparison, which is what he really wants.

Uranium enrichment can vastly increase the profits generated by Australian uranium mines - so a greatly increased profit can be had by extracting a lesser amount and enriching it.

I don't agree that that is the way to go, I'm just pointing out a key aspect, though somehow I don't think the federal government would reduce exports just because they are making more money.

There is of course the argument that we would have to accept nuclear waste from our export countries if we have an enrichment program - that isn't necessarily the case, though politics being the way they are it would only be a matter of time before a politician decided there was great profit to be had by dumping it in an out of the way part of the outback. No doubt they'd be envisioning all the good those funds could do for education, but we'd still be storing toxic waste. Future generations wouldn't be happy.

The federal government repeatedly dismisses renewable energy reserves - I'm not so sure they can't be used - they won't be a majority contributor to our power supplies for many years, I can acknowledge that, but we need to start somewhere. Britain is, why can't we?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:56:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. It saved the allied prisoners of war, who would undoubtedly have been killed, together with a large percentage of the Japanese nation, who would have died in a last ditch stand against the allied forces. Any study of the casualties at Okinawa and Iwo Jima shows conclusively what would have happened if there had been an invasion of the mainland.

The main effect of the atomic bombs is that they were so overwhelming that the Japanese could surrender (for the first time in their history) without excessive loss of face. However even after the second bomb the Japanese cabinet was deadlocked on the issue of surrender, allowing Emperor Hirohito to give his casting vote for surrender. For this reason alone I think the allies were correct in not prosecuting him as a war criminal.

Since 1945 nuclear weapons continued to save lives by preventing war between the allies and the Soviet Union. Instead we had a cold war which was eventually resolved without significant loss of life. The proxy wars fought during the cold war were always restrained by the need to prevent nuclear war, because the West and the Soviets shared one thing - neither wanted to die. Today we face another enemy who is quite happy to die, and we have a far greater problem.

The most significant underlying cause of most of the world's problems today is population increase, which of course is never mentioned. Coupled with the end of the age of cheap oil, we face an interesting period, as there obviously needs to be a significant cut in the standard of living.

The only enduring, unchanging factor is human nature, which has evolved over the last million years. As Shakespeare put it "The main interest of youth is stealing, fighting, and getting wenches with child".
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:58:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Australia should enrich and reprocess uranium and store waste products. This not only to value add exports but also control possible diversions. If a country imports X amount of enriched uranium that same amount or its decay products have to be returned or accounted for within normal cycle times. Otherwise no more uranium from Australia, Canada or other influential exporters.

Or you might think we can do without nuclear energy. In case you hadn't noticed the climate is changing from coal burning and oil is running out.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 14 August 2006 1:15:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are nuclear weapons in the world. The first two were used in anger 61 years ago, none since. There are also many nuclear power stations, of which only one has had a major fatal accident - a far better record than any other major energy source.

I agree that nuclear weapons dissemination is a major threat, that some of those seeking weapons now may be less contrained than those who have held them for decades (cf Iran). But I do not see this as a significant argument against nuclear power. In my view, that argument should be based on economics, taking account of the pollution involved both in that industry and in alternative energy sources. Global warming or not, world energy demands will increase over the next 50 years, low-pollution energy sources can provide only a small amount of requirements, and nuclear may well be the best option.

I've looked at the arguments for more local processing of minerals, wool etc, and there are generally sound reasons why it takes place closer to (generally within) major marhets. We can not assume that uranium enrichment in Australia would be viable, it's an empirical question. As for arguments that if we produce it, we should take back the waste products, that makes no sense if it is not a requirement of the purchasers - unless we want to keep potentially fissile materials from particular buyers. But there are good reasons, such as geological stability, for Australia offering waste disposal facilities. Surely better deep below the sparsely populated remote deserts of Australia than in the densely-populated countries of Europe and Asia?
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 14 August 2006 2:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no doubt some of the commentators who support the nuclear industry are genuine, thinking that it can offer a substantial response to climate change.

Unfortunatly facts don't bear this out. Fissile uranium (of sufficent grade to be economically processed) is a scarce resource.

If all the electricity now generated by burning fossil fuel was
replaced by electricity from nuclear power, there would only
be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the
reactors for between 3 and 4 years. And for this temporal advantage we are happy to produce 24,000 years of radioactive wastes!

Let's face it folks, we are energy junkies. Like any other addicts, the prospect of withdrawal - from our lavish lifestyles - is so frightening that we frantically look everywhere for a quick fix. Any fix. We would murder our grandchildren rather than face reality.

I appreciate that many commentators on this subject are genuinely concerned people. But let's get real with facts. Nuclear energy is a flash in the pan, not a solution.
Posted by gecko, Monday, 14 August 2006 3:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plersdus - for starters I debate the necessity of dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities, and your point about population growth would be a moot one if the third world nations had the same quality of life as the first world - it's easy to blame population growth for the worlds problems and completely ignore the fact that the population of first world nations aren't growing. Australia in fact, is declining, or haven't you been paying attention to Costello's baby message?

I agree nuclear power isn't a sustainable solution, though perhaps it is a viable temporary one, until renewable resources can contribute a majority of our power - the problem is, we're not really taking renewable power seriously. We should be.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 14 August 2006 4:42:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am one of those who marched against neutron bombs, ss20s, cruise missiles and the like when living in Holland in the 70s. In those days the thread of the whole world being blown up seemed more real than it is now. Perhaps the likelyhood of a couple of bombs going off is higher but the MAD concept doesn't seem to be a threat anymore.

There is so much spin on the nuclear issue now that you just don't know who to believe anymore. Let's not forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not been turned into 50,000 year uninhabitable wastelands, they are thriving cities today.

James Mortlocks book Gaias Revenge makes interesting reading. Again we are confronted by the issues. Just how much nuclear waste is generated? Less then 1000 tonnes a year according to JM, millions of tonnes according to others.

With the MSM controlled by the right and the blogs leaning towards the left, objective truth like a non-spinning top has fallen over and is nowhere to be found.
Posted by gusi, Monday, 14 August 2006 4:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do people think Iran is anymore likely to use nukes then say Pakistan.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 14 August 2006 6:07:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Gusi,

Yes there are conflicting opinions on the facts. But don't forget that vested interests have a major stake in minimising the apparant risks. With respect, I suggest that you find out who funds the researchers and writers before taking them as gospel.

In relation to wastes, the UK's radioactive inventory alone - from its current nuclear programme - amounts to 470,000 cubic metres of materials. This has been 'temporarily stored' until they can work out what the hell to do with it. There is no secret about that volume. Britain is now going through a debate about geological burial because something has to be done with it before they can even consider building new nuclear plant.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, these are jusst the wastes that can be shipped somewhere. Then there will be the retired reactors themselves, which will have to be entomed, on site, in concrete forever after.

When you grapple with these stats you wonder if all this grand insanity is really necessary in order for us to fry our eggs and bacon and warm our toes.
Posted by gecko, Monday, 14 August 2006 6:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My word, another emotional rant emitted from the heart of Greenpeace. Wilfred Burchett may have painted a vivid word picture. Objective and scientific accounts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be found in the web pages and publications of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF). I know of no satisfactory calculus that can weigh one act of war against another.

Accounts of Burchett’s life are to be found in Wikipedia or on the ABC media report of 3-Nov-2005, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s1495777.htm]. Crittenden suggest he was Involved with the KGB and a communist sympathiser.

Robert Manne in the same program details his reporting of the Korean War as indicating a strong pro-communist bias. Likewise his reporting of the Stalinist show trials was, according to Crittenden review of Burchett’s book, The Peoples Democracies:A Factual Survey, “an apologia for Stalin’s Europe,nothing more,nothing less.”

Burchett can not be described as an objective observer,he died in 1983. In the context of the world war a case can clearly be made out that the bombs saved allied lives (see “plerdsus” above). I find it very understandable that allied commanders placed the preservation of their own men above that of the enemy.

Greenpeace and its supporters may worry as much as like about nuclear bombs and nuclear terrorism. I do not care if the anti-nuclear people amuse themselves by invent more and more phantasies. The important point is that nuclear technology is finding increasing application in industry, science and technology. Hopefully, Australia will open up more uranium mines, and in the years to come will build and operate nuclear power plants.

I believe that the progess and growth of Western civilisation requires plentiful energy. To warm toes and much else.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 14 August 2006 7:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny asked:

Why do people think Iran is anymore likely to use nukes than say Pakistan?

I think that the answer is that the president of Iran has stated that it may be a good thing if Iran is martyred. He is not worried about a large percentage of Iran's population dying. Look at the way the Iran-Iraq war was conducted. Is it any wonder that most western countries are extremely anxious to prevent Iran gaining nuclear capability. They don't want to die.

Gecko claims that existing uranium supplies could only supply the world for 3 or 4 years. Although I would agree that Uranium is only a limited energy source, most authorities quote a life of 50-70 years at least for existing supplies. If the spent rods are recycled, it could be much longer. The only long-term answer is nuclear fusion, which is fail-safe, produces no nuclear waste, and uses sea water as its raw material. We can only hope that fusion power is widespread before that, and that the world's first fusion power station, currently under construction in France, proves a success. There is no going back to the past. The only way we could go back to a low energy lifestyle would be to reduce the world population to nineteenth century levels.

As far as waste storage is concerned, we have areas in Australia that were used for nuclear tests 50 years ago, and which are uninhabitable. These areas would seem ideal sites to store nuclear waste, as they are useless for anything else. Once we get fusion working we will have the energy to dispose of the wastes permanently by shooting them off into the sun.

I would be interested to know how TurnRightThenLeft would have brought ww2 to a conclusion? A massive invasion of Japan (actually scheduled for November 1945) that would have killed perhaps 5 million allied troops and 50 million Japanese? (Figures scaled up from Okinawa). And you think the bomb was a bad thing?
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 14 August 2006 10:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not care if the nuclear people amuse themselves by invent more and more phantasies. The important point is that solar technology is finding increasing application in industry, science and technology. Hopefully, Australia will open up more solar retail and wholesale outlets, and in the years to come will build and operate solar panel factories, such as this one in the US:

http://www.nanosolar.com/
Posted by Ev, Monday, 14 August 2006 10:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Japanese were already beaten, even reduced to extracting alcohol from tree-roots to fuel their vehicles in some areas.

They were desperate to surrender because the Russians were already moving across from Europe to attack them from the north.

Japan did not want to become partioned like Germany but their culture made surrender difficult under those circumstances.

Meanwhile the US was worried that the War would end before it was able to field-test the two different types of A-Bombs it had prepared but also wanted to end the War before the Russians arrived.

Therefore the bombing became inevitable for these three reasons.
Japan was able to surrender in the face of an unprecedented civilian atrocity and the USA could claim it wanted a swift end to the conflict to save lives.While this last point was true it certainly was not the full picture.

One bomb plus time for the Japanese to fully consider their options may have just as effectively ended the War, but the use of two bombs made the Japanese seem a little like Lab Rats.

It may also have been an opportunity for the USA for a show of strength by demonstrating that not only did it have this new weapon, but was willing to use it.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:23:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Guys, you are all looking backwards. Look this way ...
If only there were a reactor which could never melt down or catch fire, ran at temperatures above 900o C for high efficiency, and could run on long lived nuclear waste. If only its fuel did not use metal cladding then its burden of Intermediate Level Waste would be negligible. If only this new fuel packaging could contain all its fission products for a million years and was tough enough to be left in the reactor till all its nuclear fuels had been deep burned to ash, there would be no long lived waste left to bury. If only all the 250,000 year waste of the last century, and all the Plutonium produced, could be burned then the burden on future generations would be gone in 300 years. If only CoRWM or the Royal Society knew of such reactors then its estimates of the size and timescales of the nuclear waste problems would have been far smaller, cheaper, and less daunting to the public.
Such reactors have been designed by General Atomics of California and similar demonstration reactors are operational in Japan and China. A GA weapons Plutonium burner is to be built in Russia, with French and Japanese partners, and a version to drive a Hydrogen production plant is to be built in Idaho. If you want more details then Google “Brendan McNamara” Nuclear.
If onl
Posted by brenmcn, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 4:11:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting to read the comments of both the antinuclear people, and the pro-nuclear. Several arguments are raised - not always valid ones. For example - are we really to swallow the idea that "nuclear weapons save lives"? I am also struck by the arguments for nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Isn't anyone noticing the trouble that nouclear power stations in the Northern hemisphere are having - unable to be properly cooled during the current heat wave there? Perhaps climate change is running ahead of nuclear power's supposed ability to solve it.
Also struck by the continued insistence that the atomic bomb won the war in Japan. If you study authoritative works, such as Robert Jungk's "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns" - it becomes apparent that the U.S. dropped those bombs in a great hurry - wanting to test them out BEFORE the Japanese surrendered.
But best of all is anti-green's argument that the antinuclear people provide "emotional rants". I guess when he hasn't got a good factual argument - well, then - let's just try and discredit the other side by whatever words we can fling at them! Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChristinaMac

I downloaded this quotation from the sayings of the famous 19th century physicist Lord Kelvin.
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

It is rare indeed for the supporters of Greenpeace to provide quantifiable information. I am aware that in the UK, Green Audit attempts such quantification. COMARE a high powered UK committee whose reports can be easily downloaded has had no difficult in dismissing the claims and epidemiological studies advanced by Green Audit.

However, if the anti-nuclear groups would care to advance substantial arguments, I have every confidence that there are sufficient people in this group who can provide answers. This has to be a group exercise, because none of us pro or anti has sufficient knowledge to cover all the many radiological disciplines.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the problems we need to discuss more now is nuclear proliferation.

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons should be of primary concern. Nuclear technology may have reached or may be reaching terror groups.

A. Q. Khan is the “Father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb.” He was sacked from the position unceremoniously in January 2004 during an investigation into allegations that he gave or sold nuclear secrets to nations and groups outside Pakistan.

He confessed and apologized.

Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker in March 2004, “His confession was accepted by a stony-faced Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President, who is a former Army general, and who dressed for the occasion in commando fatigues. The next day, on television again, Musharraf, who claimed to be shocked by Khan’s misdeeds, nonetheless pardoned him, citing his service to Pakistan (he called Khan “my hero”).

John Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/
Posted by Jecarey2603, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 7:16:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deary me, Anti-Green,

I do believe you have spun yourself into a web.

If you were truly anti-green you could not support nuclear power, because Johnnie Howard has verily declared nuclear power to be Clean and Green.

In any event, there is no need for you to support nuclear power, because the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels will destroy the Earth’s atmosphere altogether, which, as an anti-green, should please you greatly.

But here is your real dilemma. Years ago, greens were warning that greenhouse gas emissions would bring on global warming. As a principled anti-green, you were, of course, in flat denial, saying they were just a bunch of doomsdayers.

But now that climate change has gained almost universal acceptance, even by those of your fellow travellers who were in flat denial, where does that leave you?

Tell me, anti-green, have you parted ways with your fellow travellers? Or could it be that your views are governed by a simple pragmatism, keep shooting the messenger regardless of fact?
Posted by gecko, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:27:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The future of nuclear power will not be like the past. By 2100 it is possible to have 10,000 safe, clean reactors in operation which will burn all their high level waste as they go. There will be enough fuel for 1000 years and then another 1000 with Thorium.The UK already possesses enough fuel for several hundred years but plans to bury it as waste.
This is one technological way forward for humanity. Unfortunately, it will require wisdom to run such a system and wisdom is very very rare. For details read my article, 'Uranium - What is to be Done?' on this web site:
cestar.seas.ucla.edu/docs/URANIUM1.PDF
Posted by brenmcn, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gecko,

500k m3 of nuclear waste is a 50x100x100 m block. All from 50 years of nuking in the UK.

The annual global CO2 output if frozen solid was (IIRC) a mountain 10 miles high and 4 miles across.

Which is more dangerous? The former is poisonous for thousands of years to come, which may be of academic interest if the world overheats and we become extinct.

Is all of the waste dangerous for that long? No one is forced to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now yet thousands (if not millions) do.
Posted by gusi, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 7:05:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a few fervent technological devotees out there and I wish you well.

Science can be real, but it can be deeply religious too. As blind in faith as any religious fanatic can be.

Piling on more and more technology, to save us from the the hazards that hard technoloigy has brought us in not intelligent.

I love elegant technology, and technology can be used to create a more sustainable world. But I have little faith in the masculine power-hungry techno solutions that are being put forward.

As Albert Einstein once said "You can't solve a problem with the same mentatility that created it in the first place".

It's time to get real. Maybe we should communciate again, folks, in about 20 years time, when I will be glad to accept your humble apologies for getting it so wrong!
Posted by gecko, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 9:35:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If you were truly anti-green you could not support nuclear power, because Johnnie Howard has verily declared nuclear power to be Clean and Green.”

MR. HOWARD IS THE CORRECT FORMAT. I FIRST BECOME INTERESTED IN NUCLEAR POWER 25YEAR AGO AT A SCIENTIFIC MEETING IN WASHINGTON

“In any event, there is no need for you to support nuclear power, because the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels will destroy the Earth’s atmosphere altogether, which, as an anti-green, should please you greatly.”
PURE SPECULATION.

“But here is your real dilemma. Years ago, greens were warning that greenhouse gas emissions would bring on global warming. As a principled anti-green, you were, of course, in flat denial, saying they were just a bunch of doomsdayers.”
CORRECT!!

“But now that climate change has gained almost universal acceptance, even by those of your fellow travellers who were in flat denial, where does that leave you?”
NO PROBLEM- FASHIONS COME AND GO.

“Tell me, anti-green, have you parted ways with your fellow travellers? Or could it be that your views are governed by a simple pragmatism, keep shooting the messenger regardless of fact?
No need to shoot the messenger.”
NO NEED TO SHOOT ANYONE- THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:10:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A 1996 UN Resolution banned DU (more accurately known as Uranium235 enrichment waste munitions) as a WMD; the UN Human Rights
Commission 2002 stated that US/UK use of DU violated The Hague
Conventions, the Geneva Protocol, the Nuremberg Principles, the
Charter of the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, etc.

Dear all,

My name is Adam.
I first heard about the U235 enrichment waste munition issue when I attended the UNHRC in Geneva 2000 and also heard Doug Rokke talk with Carmy in Freo.
I now live in an Indonesian Moslem village with my Islamic wife. I have Clerics in the family and am sponsored to be here by same.
If I understand correctly, whilst Islam allows for war under certain conditions, THE LIMITS must not be exceeded.
To cut a long story short, since I have been talking with the clerics about genocidal england & america's use of uranium weapons, the prevailing opinion appears to be that there will be no end to militant Jihad (which is not the only form of Jihad) as long as those responsible continue to kill and mutate not only the combatant, but everyone else exposed aswell.

They're very unhappy and have requested further info. I am going to put together a DVD.

Personal opinion: Only evil, psychopathic little cowards kill women & children.

May the crown be tried for Genocide and its servants imprisoned.
May sovereignty be restored to the Original People.
Bring on an Australian Republic.

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Saturday, 11 November 2006 9:34:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy