Has killing become part of the Pentagon “Press Policy”?

realy stupid reply in my op. ! key word casting. is the dust blowing around after explosion cast? maybe you need to do more research? from what ive learnd its not the problem until its exploded so i can have no issue with it and it is not mutch of a problem until you use it in / or as a wepeon asbestos is safe if there is no dust!!!

 

I shouldn't waste time responding to someone who calls my post 'stupid' who cannot even remotley spell or punctuate.

What you've 'learnd' isn't relevant. Some DU that hasn't been refined into weapons grade isn't safe because of potential toxicity. There may be a possibility that it could be dangerous in military contexts too. This is due to it's toxicity.

Although uranium dioxide dusts produced after impact are radioactive, and this is probably the only possible radiological health concern, the amount is a very small amount (less then 1%) of the amount of DU in a munition.

Theres also the very clear fact that artillery munitions have almost no use for soldiers in Iraq now, and unless someone was breathing right above the impact of a artillery shell, there is no chance of radiological damage from DU.

Toxicity is possible although yet unproven. Radiological poisoning isn't. Please read anything about depleted uranium or learn how to spell before you respond again.

 

BTW: I didn't mean you when I posted that verse.

*Peace and love*
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

​

 

I did. & read post #11​

​

''Who shall we believe? do they add deadly things to the DU then? or what? ''​

*Peace and love*​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

​

​

Cat Stevens​

 

Who knows maybe that DU is a mere DU , pure one with no additions

*Peace and love*
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

No, I won't stop, And I copied the full Article and that images are from that Article.

*Peace and love*
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Personally I take the side of the more thorough reasearch saying no credible link between DU and toxicity exists. Although I would say that more reaserch should be done.

Especially considering the purpose of the yields is artillery, and the fact that AlJazeera.com is a website that will publish any crap without validating it as long as it agrees with pre-conceptions. It's half commentary and half conspiracy. They also use the name AlJazeera.com to confuse it with Al Jazeera when their is no relation. AlJazeera.com is a tabloid.

Also the concept of spiking metal in atrillery shells with something strongly radioactive is very unrealistic. It would be very expensive, and not efffect many people. If the US miltarys goal was to conduct radiological warfare, there are much less expensive ways of doing it aside from nuclear war that would be able to effect many more people.

It couldn't be a PR issue, as there is AlJazeera.com and other sites that are willing to publish this kind of stuff anyway.

Anyone who contends that US media is biased certainly can't post AlJazeera.com as an alternative. Heavily biased non fact checked tabloids aren't a reasonable alternative to bias.

 

Fair enough. I took it on board though.

 

​

​

Don't stop just be a little more critical of the broader and whole picture, rather than the piece that interests you. Thats my humble opinion.​

You did not [seemingly] care to look at the other end of the picture or all of the facts. Thats what i got from your initial post. And asking questions like ''Who knows maybe that DU is a mere DU , pure one with no additions''


''This looks like another swipe at the US and the War, i'll have a bit of that''.
I hope thats not your motto

Lodui: Chill out.

 

anything goes.

 

Toni: No.

I wasn't insulting anyone... aside from AlJazeera.com, which is a tabloid. I don't have any problems with Stevens. I was just calling em like I see em.

 

The fact!!!!!anyway, they don't want to confuse anybody, it is very clear that it is a different one, you can know that easily,you even cannot find the logo - they published current opinions of two persons who think so (about DU) , what's wrong with that!! BTW you can write your commnets on that article on their site. + read post#11​

​

​

*Peace and love*​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

​

​

Cat Stevens​

 

​

​

read post#11​

​

Huh! I don't need such an Article to be sure that the WAR's intention was EVIL ​

*Peace and love*
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

she got banned for being a neo-con. lol

 

I just went through her posts, seems so...

Too bad.

 

Anyone see the Colbert Report where Stephen said they should bring in Special Forces *they showed a green berret with an M2*to run press confrences. "I guarentee a politer atmosphere."

That shows subversive and hilarious.