nuke 'em till they glow


darkbeaver
Republican
#1




NUKE ‘EM TIL THEY GLOW

Malcom Lagauche

Al-Rawi alleges U.S. used neutron bomb at Baghdad airport

April 10, 2007

In the buildup to Desert Storm, many bumper stickers in the U.S. proclaimed, "Nuke 'Em Till They Glow." In reality, there was some truth in the statement because the U.S. left hundreds of tons of spent uranium in Iraq. This material is very hard and was used in missiles, rockets and bombs. The leftover residue has contaminated much of Iraq and incidences of malformed babies skyrocketed after the conflict.
The U.S. again pummeled Iraq with spent uranium in its 2003 invasion of Iraq. But, did the U.S. actually detonate a nuclear weapon during the conflict? Former U.S. Army Captain Eric May came to this conclusion after closely studying the Battle of Baghdad at the international airport. In an interview published on August 25, 2006, he told me:
A couple of journalists who were in Baghdad proper talked to the people returning from the battle. The most extreme thing I picked up is that the Battle of Baghdad was started at the airport with the U.S. forces being overwhelmed. It would end up being a six-hour firefight at close quarters and my surmise is that our side was running out of ammo and somebody decided to go nuclear. That seems to be universally acknowledged by everybody on all sides, except the American.
Evidently, what happened was the U.S. G.I.s buttoned up inside their armor, which cuts down the transmission of radiation, and some sort of nuclear devices were used at Baghdad Airport. Since then, American battle doctrine has been revised to allow commanders to do exactly the kind of things that I’m inferring from my sources that were done at Baghdad Airport. In other words, they retroactively retrofitted the doctrine.
The nuclear threshold is a very fuzzy thing in this war anyway. We already went over using D.U. (depleted uranium). That already, arguably, makes it a nuclear war. Of course, you see why Battle of Baghdad One had to be covered up. How the hell do you go into a war where you say you’re going to remove an evil madman because he has weapons of mass destruction and you bring them with you?
Recently, another source made the same allegations. Saifeddin Hassan Taha al-Rawi, the former commander of Iraq’s Republican Guard, was interviewed by Al-Jazeera News about the battle. Al-Rawi is still on the run from the U.S. He is on the infamous set of playing cards the U.S. devised in 2003 as the Jack of clubs. There is a one million dollar price tag on him.
According to an Al-Jazeera article of April 9, 2007, called "U.S. Accused of Using Neutron Bombs:"
Al-Rawi told Al Jazeera that U.S. forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9 capture of the Iraqi capital.
Al-Rawi is one of the most wanted associates of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi leader, still on the run.
"The enemy used neutron and phosphorus weapons against Baghdad airport. There were bodies burnt to their bones," he said. "The bombs annihilated soldiers but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact," he added.
A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that produces minimum blast and heat, but unleashes huge amounts of lethal radiation that can penetrate armor. It is especially destructive to human tissue.
According to Al-Rawi, about 2,000 Republican Guard troops "fought until they were martyred."
The neutron bomb has been an on-again, off-again project for the U.S. military. Testing began during the Kennedy administration and was halted during the Carter administration. But, Ronald Reagan restarted the program. At one time, it was considered to be a humane weapon because it could kill people without destroying buildings. This logic is baffling because it considers property to be more valuable than human lives. One problem the U.S. always had in its projections of a nuclear war was that there would be nothing left for the U.S. to occupy after attacking a nation with nuclear weapons. The neutron bomb was the answer. It could kill a population, but leave the infrastructure intact.
Shortly after the Battle for Baghdad at the airport, U.S. military personnel moved much of the ground on which the battle was fought and replaced it with fresh dirt. At the time, these activities were questioned, but soon forgotten.
Many Iraqis who lived in the environs of the airport also died in a mysterious manner. Various indicators point to the fact that the U.S. did use a neutron bomb against the Republican Guard. As Captain May stated, they were outnumbered by the Iraqis and the only solution was to use such a hi-tech weapon.
On a sad note, Captain May recently informed me that he is suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ACL), commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. The malady affects nerve cells in the brain and in the spinal cord and usually is fatal. However, new techniques have arisen that help patients live a productive life with the disease, yet there still is no cure. I wish Captain May a possible stabilization so he can continue to inform the public of the reality of the Battle of Baghdad, a bloody and violent battle that claimed many lives. He is a man of courage and integrity.

:: Article nr. 32014 sent on 10-apr-2007 16:25 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=32014

 
mabudon
#2
Quote:

Shortly after the Battle for Baghdad at the airport, U.S. military personnel moved much of the ground on which the battle was fought and replaced it with fresh dirt. At the time, these activities were questioned, but soon forgotten.



Now THAT would be an interesting thing to get confirmation on- anyone??
 
Curiosity
#3
http://www.uruknet.web.at.it/

Lovely site ....The Dark Underbelly of Global Propaganda......

Klicken Sie Hier for Garbage....
 
mabudon
#4
Well, that's the evidence I was looking for, dunno why I even bother reading stuff or thinking anymore

Anyone with anything to say regarding the actual article then, now that we've got the BS outta the way??

I AM curious about whether that removal o' the dirt can be verified- anytime a "scene" gets cleaned up in that manner it makes me wonder just a bit
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#5
Even if the scene was cleaned up, the radiation would still be able to be detected. I would think that if such a thing had happened, it would have been reported by one of the middle east news agencies by now...
 
mabudon
#6
There's the trick tho- even the pretty moderate Al.Jazeera gets labelled by some types as nothing more than West-hating propaganda. I would think (especially after being targetted and threatened by Western powers) that IF such a story were true, you'd want to have SLAM DUNK evidence before going to print with it. Even then, it'd be tossed out as "propaganda" or worse, BAD THINGS would start to happen to you and your associates and maybe even your real estate ("you" in this case being whoever printed/ran the story in the first place)

It's happened before. As it is it's impossible to say for sure tho, that's why rather than start with "TYPICAL" I figured I would get some input on the factors at work- calling what the article says anything past "interesting" would be going a bit too far- dismissing it outright simply due to the hosting URL would be idiotic
 
thomaska
#7
I also hear that the U.S. military throws cigarette butts on the ground and sometimes even spits their gum on the sidewalk.

If its a deplorable sin, hurts the enviroment, minorities, or baby seals, the U.S. is always the first to do it, they do it more than everyone else, and regardless of what actually happened, its always moques, orphanages, and schools that end up damaged.

Whats more likely, that with only Google and Wikipedia these internet gods have figured out incredibly complex conspiracies , infiltrated deadly shadow organizations pulling the strings of the whole planet that us "sheep" just can't see... OR maybe they're just as full of s*it as politicians are?

@ just about everyone.

Oh and this "armor" we have that cuts down radiation? Where the "f" is this stuff?, because I've never seen it. If this Al"whatever" is talking about MOPP suits, then he's an idiot. A 1/16th layer of charcoal designed to slow down chemical agents isn't going to do much against the type of radiation from a "neutron" bomb.
Last edited by thomaska; Apr 11th, 2007 at 09:02 AM..
 
mabudon
#8
I haven't seen that many strawmen in one place since last halloween
 
I think not
#9
This article bases everything on the myth, that neutron bombs are radiation only devices. They are not. Neutron bombs are normal fision bombs.

EDIT: Yellow journalism at its finest.
Last edited by I think not; Apr 11th, 2007 at 09:14 AM..
 
folcar
#10
I remember reading a sic fi novel a few years back, forgot the title but it featured such weapons. If they truly exist and have been used, god help us all. A weapon that would allow any nation to obliterate the population of a rival in such a way is more power than any nation could or should be trusted with.

Even if the scene was cleaned up, the radiation would still be able to be detected. I would think that if such a thing had happened, it would have been reported by one of the middle east news agencies by now...

I agree though that would be hard to cover up, but not impossible.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#11
Heh heh. What we need is a weapon that could dispense with all the people that feel the need to take action against others just to have more power, wealth, etc.
Damn. That'd leave you and me but I'd have doubts about you so I'd have to kill you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ooops.
(Sorry. Just foolin around).
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#12
Looks like nonsense to me. Neutron bombs produce a strong burst of fast neutrons and gamma radiation over a radius of a few hundred metres, and are specifically designed to kill soldiers protected by armour. If those G.I.s were buttoned up in their armour, as the OP claims, they'd have been fried along with everyone else. Armour doesn't offer much protection against fast neutrons, which is the point of the neutron bomb. It'll slow them down a bit, and the neutrons will react with the metal in the armour, producing a cascade of secondary radiation, especially if the armour incorporates depleted uranium, as in the M-1 battle tank. It's also not true that neutron bombs leave infrastructure intact. They produce significant heat and blast effects as well. They're fusion bombs, but fusion requires a fission reaction first to create the necessary heat and pressure. If a neutron bomb went off at the Baghdad airport, there'd be unmistakeable evidence in the form of a blast crater, heavily damaged buildings, and residual radiation. .
 
EagleSmack
#13
Yes, Yes, Yes. We all know the facts of what a neutron bomb will do and how EVERYONE would have been fried whether they were in an armored vehicle or a MOPP suit. The immediate casualties of a neutron bomb dropped at the airport would have been astronomical throughout the whole city of Baghdad.

But THEY WANT to believe the US used a Nuke. THEY NEED to believe that.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#14
Homines libenter quod volunt credunt.
 
Curiosity
#15
Some of the conspiracy folk would argue with a stop sign
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Yes, Yes, Yes. We all know the facts of what a neutron bomb will do and how EVERYONE would have been fried whether they were in an armored vehicle or a MOPP suit. The immediate casualties of a neutron bomb dropped at the airport would have been astronomical throughout the whole city of Baghdad.

But THEY WANT to believe the US used a Nuke. THEY NEED to believe that.


We don't "all know" the facts of a neutron bombs use. We don't know it's size, we don't know it's effects, we don't know anything about possible armor. We do know that the United States has used nuclear bombs against defenceless targets in the past, and continues to use depleted urainium as it has done since the early 1990s. These weapons were built and paid for, I have no problem whatever believing they were used and will continue to be used in concert with the other high tech systems for crowd control of the permanent kind.
 
EagleSmack
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

We don't "all know" the facts of a neutron bombs use. We don't know it's size, we don't know it's effects, we don't know anything about possible armor. We do know that the United States has used nuclear bombs against defenceless targets in the past, and continues to use depleted urainium as it has done since the early 1990s. These weapons were built and paid for, I have no problem whatever believing they were used and will continue to be used in concert with the other high tech systems for crowd control of the permanent kind.

No... YOU don't know all the facts of what a neutron bomb can do. So in your quest to accuse the US of using a nuke you post SciFi articles. Your usual unsubstantiated evidence.

A neutron bomb would have sizzled everyone... that is what they do. Massive burst of radiation that would drop thousands in Baghdad with minimum structual damage.

Ooooo... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki slam. Boo Hoo Hoo.
 
folcar
#18
In terms of WWII, i have always tended to agree with the use of the nukes then. Japan was preparing for the innevitable invasion and had no intention of surrendering despite the obvious fact they were no longer capable of winning the war. Those 2 nukes saved thousands of lives and ended the war, by making the prospect of continuing to fight on the part of the Japenese utterly hopeless. Most likely what happened in Baghdad airport is a whole bunch of those precission missles the U.S. has, found nice cosy spots to land amongst the entrenched positions of the Iraqi's. With total air superiority the need for such measures most likely would not have existed.

In terms of the prospect of such weapons being used with the sheer level of instant global communication that exists today, i think if they do and are ever used we'll know pretty quick.

Heck i'm still waiting for the U.S. to reveal the Aurora, the rumoured fighter jet that can circle half the globe and return at speeds that would make an f-15 look like a pinto. Not for any other reason than that i love planes and think it would be damn cool. By the way for any other plane lovers the Airforce museum in Dayton Ohio is awesome!!!! And they had my 2nd favourite plane the Blackbird.... The first is reserved for the Arrow may Diefenbaker be dug up and shot!!!!!
 
EagleSmack
#19
I watched a documentary on the dropping of Atomic bombs on Japan and a Japanese proffesor was interviewed. He put it perfectly.

"Every so often when we talk about how the Americans dropped the bomb on Japan a lot of my colleagues disapprove of it and say that they should not have done that. I tell them it was a war. I pose to them the question that if we had the bomb first would we have used it on America? Absolutley. Japan would have most certainly used it against the United States."
 
tbud
#20
There's evidence to show that the Japanese were actively trying to surrender in the last two months leading up to the dropping of the A-bombs, but they were being ignored by the US administration that was now hell-bent on displaying to the world their new Nazi-designed weapon. Especially the effect that this would have on the soviets.
 
tbud
#21
neutron bomb

"Also called Enhanced Radiation Warhead, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.


In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...7/neutron-bomb

My background is in radiation science and I can tell you that while metal is actually hazardous in neutron fields, other materials such as boron and wax are useful shields as are petroleum based materials which have a high hydrocarbon content. One would have to move the tanks / materials which contain DU out of range of the neutron field or they become radioactive uranium again. Which according to the article is all completely feasible, for those who know how neutron bombs really work
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#22
Thankyou TBud, it's nice when someone with brains comments.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

I watched a documentary on the dropping of Atomic bombs on Japan and a Japanese proffesor was interviewed. He put it perfectly.

"Every so often when we talk about how the Americans dropped the bomb on Japan a lot of my colleagues disapprove of it and say that they should not have done that. I tell them it was a war. I pose to them the question that if we had the bomb first would we have used it on America? Absolutley. Japan would have most certainly used it against the United States."

The United States did use the bomb. I have no doubt that other scumbags would also have used it, if they had the oportunity. You're point is what?
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by tbud View Post

There's evidence to show that the Japanese were actively trying to surrender in the last two months leading up to the dropping of the A-bombs, but they were being ignored by the US administration that was now hell-bent on displaying to the world their new Nazi-designed weapon. Especially the effect that this would have on the soviets.

There is a really cool book on Japan in the last months of the war that speaks to both schools of thought. What you speak of is just the PC version that once again blames the US. but lets ignore that for a moment.

There were elements in the Japanese Diet (Diet was their equivalent to cabinet) that wanted to negotiate a peace settlement and there were elements that wanted to continue the fight to the end. The Emperor was on the fence and was not sure what to do when it was clear that the war was not going well. One thing is clear and that is the Japanese did not want to accept the terms of the Potsdam Conference which is what the allies demanded... INCLUDING the Soviets.

The Japanese Diet did NOT want to surrender. They wanted a conditional peace treaty. They wanted a modification of the Potsdam document and the allies said no. Therefore the Japanese vowed to continue to the end. The Japanese biggest concern was that the Emperor would be put on trial and/or removed as their ruler.

After the second bombing at Nagasaki the Emperor for once made a ruling on his own and said that his life or seat of power is not worth preserving while his people are being killed. He would not listen to the Japanese Warring faction any longer and told the Diet to accept the Potsdam Treaty and accept Unconditional Surrender.

Even then on the night of surrender elements of the Japanese military seized the Imperial Palace by force to basically convince the Emperor to change his mind as they thought he was being mislead. Members of the Imperial Guard, Diet members (not all) were killed until the Emperor went to the rebels and basically said

"You have disobeyed my orders and have insulted me." (in so many words... I can't remember exactly) The short lived seige was over and many of the ring leaders ended up killing themselves in disgrace.

I think the book was called "Japan's Final Days". It was a great book.
 
EagleSmack
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by tbud View Post

neutron bomb

"Also called Enhanced Radiation Warhead, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.


In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...7/neutron-bomb

My background is in radiation science and I can tell you that while metal is actually hazardous in neutron fields, other materials such as boron and wax are useful shields as are petroleum based materials which have a high hydrocarbon content. One would have to move the tanks / materials which contain DU out of range of the neutron field or they become radioactive uranium again. Which according to the article is all completely feasible, for those who know how neutron bombs really work

DB you act as if this supports your silly theory. The US Tank crews would have been sizzled at the airport. The center of Baghdad is only 5 miles away so their certainly would have been horrendus civillian radiation casualties.

Also tank and infantry formations are spread out over many miles.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The United States did use the bomb. I have no doubt that other scumbags would also have used it, if they had the oportunity. You're point is what?

My point is I am having a discussion/debate with another intelligent person and you are pretty much incapable of having one of those. It's not your fault, you're just not capable of keeping up. Why don't you go cut and paste something.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

My point is I am having a discussion/debate with another intelligent person and you are pretty much incapable of having one of those. It's not your fault, you're just not capable of keeping up. Why don't you go cut and paste something.

Oh you're having a discussion, pardon me for interrupting your genius while it's at work.I'm sorry that I can't match your wealth of information Smack.
 
MikeyDB
#28
Certainly of course we can exonerate everything and anything the United States has done in Iraq...after all...They invaded Iraq becuase of those piles of WMDs.....Where are they? They (America) has yet to acknowledge their culpability in an invasion out of which conspiracy theories and all manner of nonsense have arisen...
The fact remains that America is responsible for everything conspiracy theories et al. that have been given attention because the larger conspiracy theory of America needlessly and against the wishes and opinion of millions of people around the world brought terrorism to the pinnacle of attention it now is...
Nukes or not....the United States is responsible ...when will the people of America admit to their stupidity and acknowledge they were lied to by their government?

Never. It would be profoundly UN-American to accept either responsibility or acknowledge the truth.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Oh you're having a discussion, pardon me for interrupting your genius while it's at work.I'm sorry that I can't match your wealth of information Smack.

No problem. Like I said... it's not your fault.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

No problem. Like I said... it's not your fault.

Thank-you Smack, that's so kind of you.
 

Similar Threads

44
Till Elections Do Us Part
by SirJosephPorter | Mar 17th, 2009
1
UV light makes fluorescent felines glow
by CBC News | Dec 17th, 2007
0
Hot Club de Paris - Drop It Till It Pops
by Blackleaf | Aug 28th, 2006
28