Not quite, Arjay.

>>Pericles you are telling lies once again.This is why I don't bother with answering most of your piffle<<

You don't answer because I am right, and you know it.

Here are Professor Busby's statements, verbatim.

In answer to the question "where did the enriched uranium come from?", he answered:

"Well we're not entirely sure about that, but we have some ideas and there have been some suggestions... One suggestion is that people are covering their tracks [by using enriched vs. depleted uranium]... another possibility is that a new weapon altogether has been developed, that is a kind of neutron bomb... this is really a science fiction possibility"

I particularly enjoyed the first flight of fancy - that because they had found enriched uranium ("used in atom bombs and nuclear power stations", according to the professor) instead of depleted uranium, it is evidence of a cover-up!

There seems to be little doubt that some form of uranium-based contamination occurred in Fallujah, and that one of the possible causes was US weaponry. But as I pointed out in my previous post, you allow your predilection for global domination conspiracy theory to leap straight from that premise, into "the USA will initiate WW3,hit hard and get China/Russia to sue for peace under their terms."

You know perfectly well that I don't tell lies, Arjay. What I do, is point out where your stories leave the realms of reality and take off into the stratosphere of new world order conspiracy theories.

Incidentally, if you care to refute my direct quotes, or suggest they are taken out of context, by all means do so. It would be a welcome change to discuss facts with you.

You lie by omission.Busby also said that a new weapon other than this "Neutron Bomb" was possible.It is bad enough that they have used DU and now we find evidence of enriched Uranium.Busby was being very cautious and you are twisting this caution into your unlikely scenario.

Good to see Russia in Lybia eh.Perhaps those war mongering Zionists will get back in their cage.

Ok, so I didn't give the full transcript. Nor, for that matter, did you.

>>You lie by omission.Busby also said that a new weapon other than this "Neutron Bomb" was possible.<<

He said a whole lot of stuff. He didn't have any real evidence, so he used "suggestions" and "possibilities" to build pictures of different kinds of battleground nuclear weaponry. Naturally, when you don't have any direct evidence, you have to be "cautious", as you describe it. I call it woolgathering.

My main point was not Prof Busby's multiple-choice offering, though, but the way you translated his vague wafflings into your own dreams that "the USA will initiate WW3,hit hard and get China/Russia to sue for peace under their terms."

There will be an enquiry, where presumably we can look at the evidence, and understand that there are far more theories that fit the facts than only those drama-queen offerings made by the good professor. His history of being correct is not particularly great either - check out his dynamite Second Event Theory, and what happened to it.

He is quite addicted to publicity, it would appear. Mainly for that stalwart of factual reporting, Russia Today.

I guess we all have to make a living somehow.

Actually pericles, I think the champagne 'Arjay' moment was when he described the powerbrokers of Europe as 'inbred psychopaths'.

Arjay, the first step to having a rational conversation is seeing that the other side might have a point.

The second step is critically evaluating both arguments, rather than simply taking material that agrees with your point of view.

The moment you denounce them as 'inbred psychopaths' you free yourself of having to listen to any logic which contradicts your point. Fortunately, you also free us from having to extend you the benefit of the doubt or taking you seriously.

We recommend that you compose longer comments in a wordprocessing package in case your internet connection fails or the system times out and your comments are lost.

Incidentally, Arjay, I meant to ask you...

In your opening post, you state:

>>The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh did not front to the recent CHOGM meeting in Perth.This was slap in the face for Britian<<

The article you referenced didn't mention Britain (or even Britian, come to that) at all, so I wondered where you got your information on the "slap in the face" from. Perhaps you meant this article from the same paper?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111109/jsp/opinion/story_14722738.jsp

Oh, can't be that one. It says that...

"In reality, the Commonwealth is the only organization to which India can claim a sense of belonging on the international stage..."

Some slap, that.

It is also worth noting that the Indian Head of State is of course their President, so the Prime Minister probably wasn't even invited.