[Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

[Jens Ropers]

On 5 Jan 2005, at 05:46, Christopher Larberg wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:37:30 +0100, Jens Ropers  
> <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
>> 1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and radioactive and
>> chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now than logging on to
>> the Internet and editing some website.
>
> Just out of curiosity, when was Fallujah nuked and sprayed down? I
> must have missed it, between eating my double-Supersized Big Mac and
> filling up my 2-mile-per-gallon SUV.

There's a difference between the terms "radioactive weapons" and  
"nuclear weapons".
Granted, there is also a fierce argument out there whether or not D.U.  
also counts as a ''radiation'' and/or ''radiological'' weapon (or--to  
some--even as a "nuclear" weapon). Statistics on the incidence of  
cancers and malformed children born in places like Iraq would  
reportedly seem to support the description of D.U. ammo as  
"radiological/radiation weapons", but such claims/definitions are far  
from universally accepted -- which is why I chose to be on the safe  
side and said ''radioactive'' weapons and not ''radiation'' weapons.
NB: Search for Iraqi cancer statistics. Use "teratogenic" and "Iraq" as  
Google search terms.
(  
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=teratogenic+iraq&btnG=Search&meta=  
)

I suppose your expression "sprayed down" refers to the US' continued  
use of chemical weapons. See comment below. Note that I'm not buying  
into the Mullarkey of denying napalm is a chemical weapon on grounds  
that the incendiary effects of its CHEMICALS are even greater than  
their direct CHEMICAL action. I know this one is a matter of dispute  
but I have nothing but contempt for people who quibble on this point.

>> 3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a foreign army lays
>> siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would it be  
>> unreasonable
>> to assume that the person so affected might rather be WAY past
>> contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia? (Which is why I
>> reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two sequels, al Qaeda
>> branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch and I could be
>> wrong.)
>
> The U.S. military destroyed the last of its napalm a few years ago, if
> memory serves me right. I could be mistaken, though.

Yes you are. As this article  
<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145870882.html? 
oneclick=true> will tell you, the difference between napalm of the  
"Napalm-B" brand and napalm of the "Mark 77" brand is the use of  
slightly different chemicals for thickening the inflammable fuel  
(and--presumably--added oxidisers with Mark 77 -- which should make it  
even MORE lethal)). We already had this discussion a while ago. Search  
the list archives and/or use Google.
(  
http://www.google.ie/search? 
hl=en&q=Napalm+Mark+77&btnG=Google+Search&meta= )

Of course one might say that the Pentagon's relevant statements were  
beyond pharisaic (in the "hypocritical" sense). But hey! -- You're  
talking about a country that actively manufactures, stores and uses  
WMD. The latter--"uses"--is meant to currently "only" pertain to WMD of  
the "explosive" type; I'm following the US' own civil defense WMD  
definition here. Of course US Gulf war vets have alleged US use of  
tactical nuclear weapons as well, but I've not seen sufficient evidence  
to support that claim. It wouldn't surprise me though. After all, the  
US also manufactures, stores and uses stuff like cluster bombs and  
landmines (condemned by the UN, Red Cross/Red Crescent, etc. etc.).

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com