Forum Index
Life Grounded Discussions / Livs-grundade diskussioner
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 Please note that articles older than a few days are often locked from editing, so links here is guaranteed to refer to the intended material.
 Cookies:  Liksom många websiter använder denna cookies och/eller liknande teknologier för att förbättra användbarheten, men det går att blockera cookies i sin webbläsare och ändå läsa siten.  En cookie är en liten datafil som sparas i den enhet du använder för att läsa siten.  Vi kan använda både tillfälliga cookies och sparade cookies.  Om du läser siten godkänner du att cookies används.

Some Musings on "the new Rome" and on Depleted Ura

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Life Grounded Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leif Erlingsson
Site Admin

Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Location: Tullinge, Botkyrka, Sweden, Earth

PostPosted: Fri, 2005 Aug 26 0:22:31    Post subject: Some Musings on "the new Rome" and on Depleted Ura Reply with quote

Some Musings on "the new Rome" and on Depleted Uranium - DU

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:23:47 +0200 (MEST) I wrote the following (here slightly edited) in a longer post to a forum:

I have added "If this is the new Rome, we are all citizens" to my signature, just to drive the point home that it doesn't matter in what part of the world you live, since the US has decided that it is a world Empire, that makes us all citizens, whether you acknowledge this or not. Hence it is a fallacy to argue that only US citizens should be allowed to criticize the US, unless the US retracts it's over 700 foreign military bases and all foreign interests and keep locked up, and not use more of the worlds natural resources than what's inside US borders. So, while the US is expansionist, it is most certainly appropriate for anyone, anywhere to criticize it.
As for Sweden: Sweden has allowed criminals from the CIA to take people to Egypt for torture. While judges in Italy have issued warrants for the arrest of several CIA criminals because of their terrorist-related activities. No judge is that independent here. Here we allow foreign intelligence operatives to roam free, killing their country-men here at will, not interfering. While our secret police keeps track of Swedish dissidents like people trying to keep track of the illegal arms-deals between Sweden and the US, breaking Swedish law. Sweden have truly allowed herself to be corrupted. It is even possible, though I have no proof and I am not even sure myself, I have just hints to go on, that the US is manufacturing some Depleted Uranium ammo here. Use of DU is the most devilish thing imaginable to man. It's effects lasts for many generations and affects the genes. To have anything to do with it, as I suspect Sweden to have by possibly allowing the US to manufacture DU ammo here, is like selling ones soul to the devil.

It has been estimated from Gulf War I figures that half the servicemen who served in Iraq will be unable to work in ten years time from now due to the WMD that your own troops brought there. Even some wives back home will get cancer and some newborns will have genetic problems. (``In some studies of soldiers [from the first Gulf war] who had normal babies before the war, 67 percent of the post-war babies are born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.'' [the Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan), Tuesday, August 9, 2005,])
And it is even possible that in a few generations the genetic damage back in Iraq will be so great that in effect the Iraqis will have been killed off completely. One report calculates that slightly over more that the current population of Iraq will die because of this WMD used by the US in Iraq. In the US it will "only" affect the families with family members in Iraq and other war scenes.There is a great story on this infernal "from-hell" poison in the Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan) from Tuesday, August 9, 2005, see The article mentions "Beyond Treason" that is a new documentary about the history of treason by the U.S. government against your own troops: Atomic veterans, MK-Ultra, Agent Orange and DU. After Vietnam, Henry Kissinger said, "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. . ." (from Chapter 5 in the "Final Days" by Woodward and Bernstein).I'm sorry, but the criminals who run your country despise the troops. And they despise the people of the world, or they would not purposely CONTAMINATE the world with DNA-altering heavy-metals, that breaks down in other radioactive isotopes:Depleted Uranium - DU - on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller.
The use of depleted uranium weapons is a crime against humanity, a crime against all species, and a war against the earth. A war waged by the criminals in control over the so called "coalition of the willing", being the same people who said "if you are not with us, you are against us", thereby declaring war on the whole world except those who joins up with this murderous cabal.
This infernal WMD radioactive-heavy-metal-dust-poison going straight at the DNA in living biological matter is illegal both according to US and International law -- as if your government would care.Depleted uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapon of mass destruction in two out of three categories under U.S. Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302.

DU weaponry violates all international treaties and agreements, Hague and Geneva war conventions, the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, U.S. laws and U.S. military law.

International Human Rights and humanitarian lawyer, Karen Parker, determined that depleted uranium weaponry fails the four tests for legal weapons under international law, and that it is also illegal under the definition of a poison weapon. Through Karen Parkers continued efforts, a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission determined in 1996 that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that should not be used:

Resolution 1996/16 On Stopping The Use Of Depleted Uranium - DU

The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to choose the means and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the ban on causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23 §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b GP1) as well as the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right to life established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights.

Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN Convention on Human Rights:
  1. Temporal Test - Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

  2. Environmental Test - Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

  3. Territorial Test - Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

  4. Humaneness Test - Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.

Again, as if your government or the other members of the murderous "if you are not with us, you are against us" cabal would care.

The U.S. has illegally conducted four nuclear wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq since 1991, calling DU "conventional" weapons when in fact they are nuclear weapons.

More Information Here:
  1. The Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan), Tuesday, August 9, 2005:

  2. "Beyond Treason"

  3. "The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War"

  4. Depleted Uranium: Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets: A death sentence here and abroad LEUREN MORET / San Francisco Bay View 18aug04

  5. Effects Of Depleted Uranium

  6. Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War


I hope some day the people doing this against the troops in the US, in the UK, in Iraq, even against the so called Insurgents and against all living creatures on this earth - because this stuff spreads all over the globe, eventually, will one day be held responsible in a court of law for their crimes against all living things. It is truly "Beyond Treason", what they have done. They have betrayed life itself! They are the most evil creatures that have walked the earth.

That is how I feel about George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their puppets in other countries, like in London. And this is no Republican/Democrat issue either. The rot is in both parties. It is in bought congressmen, it is in the Military-Industrial Complex, just like "Ike" warned about in his farewell speech.

Yes, Saddam is a nobody in my book, compared to the evil of these men. Saddam never scared me. He would have, had I lived in Iraq. I agree 100% with that. But George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their puppets in other countries scares the shit out of me even though I live in Sweden, far, far away from them. Even Hitler and Stalin were of lesser evil than the evil of which these men are capable.

Because neither Hitler nor Stalin had access to the doomsday-weapons that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush have access to. What if they mount a nuclear attack against Iran, then later against North Korea, where will it end? And what will all that radio- activity do to life on earth?

There has even been rumors that the US really wanted to nuke Iraq, but eventually went for conventional war.

Nothing but nothing scares me more that the US!

It is the loss of rationality that scare me.

I read A LOT. I have dozens of US books on US politics, CIA and war. Most of them by ex. insiders. Some of them by ex. hawks. Like Chalmers Johnson. Read his "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic".

Or listen to an interview with professor Doug Dowd, two hours:
Subtitle: The Economics of American Militarism Then and Now
Program Type: Weekly Program
Featured Speakers/Commentators: Doug Dowd, Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, Katrina Yeaw
Producer: Unwelcome Guests Collective
Broadcast Restictions: For non-profit use only

I have no illusions about what all this is about: It is about securing the last oil. The oil industry in their internal assessments predict that after 2007, demand will exceed production. There will simply not be enough oil in the ground to meet demand. How long until it is really out is still an open question, but the elite in the US seems to have decided to take control of this last oil using whatever means necessary. "If you are not with us, you are against us." And those who "are against" will get no oil. A problem with this scenario is that you can't have democracy in the homeland or among your comrades in crime, or the public might get restless, like they already are in California. So, in your national security state, you must step-by-step get rid of democracy and human rights. The US has already abolished Human Rights abroad and couldn't care less about International law, etc. As long as possible, in the rethoric, the pretense is of course upheld. Especially towards "the troops". But "to support the troops" is really code for "betray the troops". So, no, I do not betray the troops! Again: "Beyond Treason"

It is a gloomy world, and it's rough times ahead.

At any rate, "the troops" are considered expendable by your criminals-at-command.

PS: Michael C. Ruppert spoke about what's behind all this before the US elite in The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco August 31, 2004, that is VERY interesting:

In the first part he describes who in the US administration is responsible for "911" and what the evidence is -- he was a cop and is using cop skills in this -- and in the other part he explains why, including using Oil Industry inside data.

Other great sources for the crime against humanity made possible by the 11 September 2001 hoax, THAT WAS A HOAX ON ALL THE WORLD, are:
  • "Painful questions. An analysis of the September 11th attack"
    Eric Hufschmid

  • "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11"
    David Ray Griffin, Richard Falk

  • "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions"
    David Ray Griffin
    (He's a very respected professor of theology. I'll quote him below.)

  • "The Terror Timeline : Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response"
    Paul Thompson
  • "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic"
    Chalmers Johnson

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

THE David Ray Griffin Address
at the National Press Club
June 22, 2005, FOLLOWS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Address at the National Press Club, June 22, 2005

by David Ray Griffin, professor & theologian

After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the "blowback" thesis -- the attacks were payback for US foreign policy.

About a year later, a colleague suggested that the attacks were orchestrated by our own government.

My response was that I didn't think the Bush administration---even the Bush administration---would do such a thing.

A few months later, another colleague suggested that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 timeline created by Paul Thompson. This timeline, I found, contained an enormous number of reports, all from mainstream sources, that contradicted the official account.

This started a process that led me to publish "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11," which summarized much of the evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers---evidence, I concluded, that provided a "strong prima facie case for official complicity."

In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares that such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution's case. The defense cannot simply ignore the prosecution's case by stating that it is "too outrageous to be dignified by a response." If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.

The Bush administration responded to the charges against it as a defense attorney would, declaring them too outrageous to be taken seriously. President Bush himself advised people, perhaps especially reporters, not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." What the president really meant is that people should not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories except his own, according to which 19 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and also defeated the laws of physics, bringing down three steel-frame building in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition.

In any case, what was needed at that stage was someone to play the role of the judge, determining, from an impartial perspective, whether a prima facie case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been made.

This role should have been played by the press. But the mainstream press instead offered itself as a mouthpiece for the administration's conspiracy theory.

The role of the impartial judge has, nevertheless, been played by civil society, in which tens of millions of people in this country and around the world now accept the 9/11 truth movement's contention that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.

The fact that the president was finally forced to appoint a 9/11 commission provided an opportunity for the Bush administration to rebut the allegations made against it. You might assume that the 9/11 Commission would have played the role of an impartial jury, simply evaluating the evidence for the competing conspiracy theories and deciding which one was more strongly supported.

The Commission's investigative work, however, was carried out by its staff, and this staff was directed by the White House's man inside the Commission, Philip Zelikow, a fact that the mainstream press has not emphasized. Under Zelikow's leadership, the Commission took the role of the prosecution for the Bush administration's brief against al-Qaeda. In doing so, it implicitly took the role of the defense for the Bush administration. Accordingly, an important question to ask about The 9/11 Commission Report, especially since we know that the Commission had many copies of The New Pearl Harbor, is how well the Commission rebutted the prima facie case against the Bush-Cheney administration, which was summarized in that book.

In a second book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I showed that the Commission simply ignored most of that evidence and distorted the rest. I will summarize a few of the 115 sins of omission and distortion that I identified.

The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow's commission, however, said that Atta had become "fanatically" religious. They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions.

People who have seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 know that President Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota when he was told that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, a sign that the country was suffering an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the president just sat there. Many critics have asked why he did not immediately assume the role of commander-in-chief, but the more important question is why the highly trained Secret Service agents did not immediately rush him to safety. Bush's location had been highly publicized. They should have worried that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on them at that very moment. And yet they allowed the president to remain at the school another half hour, thereby implying that they knew the president was not a target.

The 9/11 Commission's only response was to report that "[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the President] to run out the door." The Commissioners evidently accepted the implied suggestion that maintaining presidential decorum was more important than protecting the president's life. The mainstream press has had no comment on this remarkable response to that remarkable incident.

Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.

Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.

Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow's commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."

James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.

Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow's final report.

The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez's story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.

The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions---whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757.

The Commission did allude to one problem---the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a "terrible pilot" while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was "the operation's most experienced pilot." The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction.

The Commission also failed to discuss the considerable evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military, perhaps when passengers were about to wrest control of it. The Commission dealt with this problem only indirectly, by claiming that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until 10:10, which was at least four minutes after Flight 93 crashed. In support of this claim, the Commission said that Cheney did not enter the Operations Center under the White House until almost 10:00 that morning. To make this claim, however, the Commission had to contradict all prior reports. It also had to delete Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given during the Commission's public hearings, that when he got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already in charge. Even such an obvious lie, supported by such blatant suppression of evidence, has elicited no murmur from our mainstream press.

There are dozens of other omissions and distortions the press has allowed the Commission to get away with. For example, the Commission's endorsement of the claim by General Richard Myers that he was on Capitol Hill that morning ignores Richard Clarke's report, in Against All Enemies, that Myers was in the Pentagon, participating in Clarke's videoconference. Also, the Commission's account of why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted contradicts the account that had been told since shortly after 9/11 not only by the U.S. military but also by the press, in thousands of stories. But the press now, like Gilda Radnor, says "Never Mind."

In any case, as these illustrations show, the 9/11 Commission, which had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration, failed to do so. This means that the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be recognized as a decisive event, because it was the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.

What we need now is a press that will let the American people in on this development---which is most important, given the fact that the official story about 9/11 has provided the pretext for virtually every other horrible thing this administration has done.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Finally, The Association for Psychohistory, Inc. on 9/11, on my website:

It's their current issue, about what really happened.

I checked up on The Association for Psychohistory. They have been around for a long time, and there are links to them from a number of well known universities. Apparently, they are in a number of countries, etc. It is not "just a bunch of cranks."

The official lies are so bad that they are wearing off. More and more people wake up to reality. I even have a theory about this: I think that not everything went according to plan on 9-11. If all had gone according to plan, my thinking is that the US would have been turned into some kind of military dictatorship already, and there would no longer be any need to keep people in the dark. Or information could be more controlled. I think that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania (possibly because the passengers really did get control over it, and they could not be allowed to land, because the truth would then come out) were headed for e.g. the White House, and the other plane that was going to get hi-jacked, but where they didn't even get on-board, or something, I forgot the details, that perhaps that was meant for Congress. If those two would have been taken out also, there really could have been Martial Law pronounced on September 11, 2001, and it would have been illegal to question the government then already. No need even for a faked official 911 report. (Which it was, I have looked around in the official 911 report and it ignores facts of the most monumental level, like it doesn't even once mention building 7, that you can see on video footage being taken down using controlled demolition only hours after WTC 1 and 2.)

In order to keep control, another terrorist attack on US soil is absolutely necessary, and soon. However, they just might be loosing it. Let's hope! Or they'll nuke Iran, and we'll have a nuclear war to worry about... And if they get really lucky, some other country is going to nuke the US. And then -- if they survive -- noone is going to worry about getting them behind bars.

But if the above for some reason doesn't happen, then more and more people are going to wake up and get disoriented, like when people like myself experience that we "wake up" and we feel like we "discover that the LDS Church wasn't the one and only true Church after all". True or false (speaking of the LDS, trying not to offend), this is exactly the same kind of feeling that people in general then will have -- there will in such a case be a rather long period of confused and disoriented people, while others are still indoctrinated. But more and more people will become more and more reality-based.

I hope that this is what is going to happen. I can deal with that, I have experience from recently myself. And I don't want a nuclear war to kill the future.

Always the Truthseeker,

Leif Erlingsson ................... +46 (0)8-778 50 38 (home)
Katrinebergsvägen 70 .............. +46 (0)709-140 631 (work)
146 50 Tullinge, Sweden .......... +46 (0)731-545 161 (private)

- - - - > Life Grounded Discussions:
- - - - > "If this is the new Rome, we are all citizens."


When would the war be right?

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:11:16 +0200 (MEST) I wrote the following (here slightly edited) in a longer post to a forum:

Someone had asked the question ``Under what conditions do we accept that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing?''

My reply to this question was:

Under the condition that genocide and ecocide are good things, the invasion of Iraq was a good thing.

I know that I posted the following information here on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:23:47 +0200 (MEST), but I don't think that the information quite "hit home". Hence this repeat of some of the points from my earlier post. Please refer to original post [Ed.: above] for the reminder and for the references.
  • Half of the US servicemen in Iraq will be unable to work in ten years time due to Depleted Uranium genetic poisoning.

  • 67 percent of post-war babies of Gulf War I soldiers who had normal babies before the war are born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.

  • 25 million Iraqis -- slightly over Iraqs population -- are calculated to die from these effects.

  • A huge percentage of Iraqi post-war babies will be born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases. Exact figures impossible to know because the Iraqi Health Ministry was looted so pre-war medical records are unavailable. It can however be estimated that the percentage is not above 100 percent of Iraqi post-war babies.

  • Depleted Uranium - DU - on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller. It's use is illegal both according to US and International law, and is indeed a weapon of mass destruction.

  • Depleted Uranium - DU - continues to kill and maim virtually for eternity. And the very tiny size particles (0.1 microns and smaller) eventually spreads into the entire atmosphere, affecting all of us. This is one of the reasons that the war is an ecocide, because any new radioactive or/and DNA-altering material that is released adds to the total, until at some point life itself will be erased, except for such specialized organisms that may be more resilient to DNA-altering than the plant- and animal-life of todays planet Earth. [Though maybe this is the long-time plan; Ecocide -- total suicide on all now living -- to provide the earth with a clean start, a "New Eden"?]

As I stated in my other post (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:23:47 +0200), in my book this makes George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their puppets in other countries the most evil creatures that have walked the earth. If "evil" should be interpreted as that which is against all life and for all death.

Please look up my older post for more, if you'all missed it. [Ed.: above]

So again, the US invasions of Iraq and other places are good things if we consider the genocide of millions of people for generations, and the possible erasure of life on planet Earth, to be good things. Eugenics was a very popular principle warmly adhered to by the intelligentsias of many countries in the 1930's. One country took it to it's logical extreme. Today a much, much, much worse extreme has been found, and those in power seem hell-bent on taking us there. Many people believe that the human race is doomed, and judging by what we allow our leaders to do to us, maybe we are.

But I for one is not going to stand by idle while the future of my children and everybody's is stolen. The sun still have a few billion of years or so, what's the point of exiting history now?! Just suppose that the unbelievers are right - then EVERYTHING will be lost. And noone to remember. Ever. The Human Race DESERVES that we try to save it. And the rest of all life on earth. And doing so demands that we stop the spread of nuclear materials. And doing this in part requires stopping the militaries of various countries from shooting off DU ammo. And doing so requires NOT STARTING WARS!!!

Starting a war in this day and age, with "everyone" (well, the US, UK, Israel, India and a few others) having Depleted Uranium ammo) is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Always the Truthseeker,

Leif Erlingsson ................... +46 (0)8-778 50 38 (home)
Katrinebergsvägen 70 .............. +46 (0)709-140 631 (work)
146 50 Tullinge, Sweden .......... +46 (0)731-545 161 (private)

- - - - > Life Grounded Discussions:
- - - - > "If this is the new Rome, we are all citizens."


Who "created" the Talibans?

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:20:44 +0200 (MEST) I wrote the following (here slightly edited) in a longer post to a forum:

Someone had stated that ``I feel that our current situation gives an excellent example of a just war vs. an unjust war. I fully support our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan. The Taliban attacked us and the Taliban were the ruling party in Afghanistan. (I think the U.S. claims of enemy combatants is ridiculous, but that's a whole different discussion.) We went in to Afghanistan with a plan and objectives - although we're still missing a clear exit plan.''

My reaction to this was:

The same arguments about Depleted Uranium that I made in my other post today applies also to Afghanistan. But that aside, CIA made the Talibans what they are in order to make life impossible for the Soviets.

I don't like the Talibans. But while I used to think that the war in Afghanistan was just (this was before the Iraq war), my studies since have led me to conclude that it is not in any way just. Besides, the situation in Afghanistan is if anything worse today than when the US interfered.

It wasn't the Afghanistan's that attacked the US on September 11, 2001, but a CIA-organization [or possibly former CIA-organization, that remains to be seen] with it's roots in Saudi-Arabia named Al Qaida. This Al-CIA-duh-organization happened to have training facilities in Florida (flight-training) and in Afghanistan and other places.

But the retaliation wasn't directed at CIA's Langley headquarters, nor at Florida, nor at Saudi-Arabia, not even at all the many bin Ladens in the US at the time -- who were instead immediately whisked away to Saudi-Arabia -- but for some reason they were directed at Afghanistan. Where Usama-bin-Goldstein (compare the nefarious traitor character Goldstein in George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, that are forever hated but never ever caught) naturally have NOT been caught.

As has been shown by many levelheaded people -- see for example quotes at -- the US and other co-conspirators orchestrated the events on September 11, 2001. Whether there was actual real hijackers or not is not really important, because even if there were and even if they actually and intentionally flew the planes into the towers, this would not have killed a tenth of the people actually killed because of the controlled demolitions actually taking the buildings down. Anyone who takes his or her time to really study the various videos of buildings 1, 2 and 7 being taken down will not fail to eventually break through the mental blocks to see see what's been right in front of all of our eyes the whole time. As more and more people wake up from the "hypnosis", more and more people see trough this. And by all means, get the official report and see for yourself what a coverup it is! The official 911 report is the best proof there is that this was an inside job.

And if "911" was orchestrated from the White House, why should Afghanistan (and Iraq) be punished? Why are not the guns pointed at the President?!

Also see the David Ray Griffin Address at the National Press Club June 22, 2005, near the end of an earlier post of mine [Ed.: above] (It's the Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:23:47 +0200 (MEST) post.)

Professor (of theology) David Ray Griffin here talks about how we can know that the "911" events was done by the White House et al. READ! So, since "911" was orchestrated from the White House, should the guns not be pointed at the US President?! Not at Afghanistan, Iraq and other places....

Always the Truthseeker,

Leif Erlingsson ................... +46 (0)8-778 50 38 (home)
Katrinebergsvägen 70 .............. +46 (0)709-140 631 (work)
146 50 Tullinge, Sweden .......... +46 (0)731-545 161 (private)

- - - - > Life Grounded Discussions:
- - - - > "If this is the new Rome, we are all citizens."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Leif Erlingsson
Site Admin

Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Location: Tullinge, Botkyrka, Sweden, Earth

PostPosted: Fri, 2005 Aug 26 1:27:52    Post subject: WHO says DU is practically harmless Reply with quote

WHO says DU is practically harmless at

Doug Rokke, Ph.D., who was assigned to the DU assessment team as the team health physicist and medic by directive of Headquarters Department of the Army in Washington, D.C. via a message sent to the theater commander during March 1991, have a very different story. Here: (a paper presented in the British House of Commons; London, England; on December 16, 1999) And here: (an Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, at the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 17th Annual Leadership Breakfast, at the U.S. Senate Caucus Room on November 10, 2000.)

Piotr Bein, PhD, wrote the following brief that was invited to the World Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, October 16-19, 2003. The post-conference version is dated November 1, 2003; "Uranium Weapons Cover-ups in Our Midst": It is also available as PDF: One breif quote: ``A team from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) reported after a visit to hard-target bomb sites in Afghanistan: "The UMRC field team was shocked by the breadth of public health impacts coincident with the bombing. Without exception, at every bombsite investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by Uranium."''

These reports are of course incompatible with the WHO version, at . Who to believe? . . . Can there possibly have been a coverup? Surely not. Or?

In 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.

Larry Johnson of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote this illuminating piece Tuesday, November 12, 2002:

The article reference Gulf War veteran studies. Read and think...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Life Grounded Discussions All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
HOME          Läs om Intelligentsians blockering här:          Besök AllaForum!