Current poll
Should Iraq-war.ru have RSS feature?
|
Iraq, Ramzaj and a Neutron Bomb
By: TerraHertz on: 20.10.2004 [15:49 ] (2815 reads)
|
Picture: burned out Abrahms at Baghdad airport
The battle of Baghdad Airport marked the end of the Ramzaj reports,
while the US media's war and US casualty reporting disconnected
completely from reality.
|
(17273 bytes)
|
|
An interesting connection between the ceasation of the Ramzaj reports,
and events at the Battle of Baghdad Airport, in April 2003. Also a
summary of alternative Iraq War news sources.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, http://www.aeronautics.ru
(by Venik) carried English translations of detailed war reports said to
originate indirectly from the Russian GRU. The first of these was on
March 23, 2003, and is still available at http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news066.htm
(as are all the rest, but linked sequentially, with apparently no
master index.) These were derived from intercepts of US communications
by Russian military signals groups, and were edited extracts of the
Russian (private?) analysis of US operations.
Later, another site (www.iraqwar.ru - since defunct) also made
available English translations, and attributed the reports to 'the
Ramzaj group'. This site included an annonymous user comment forum,
where many interesting details surfaced.
In Oct 2004 the Ramzaj reports plus some historical commentary have been reposted at
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=27229 (part 1)
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=27346 (part 2)
On April 8, 2003, during latter stages of the Battle of Bagdad, the
Ramzaj reports ceased, citing loss of information sources. Sometime
after that, iraqwar.ru went off the net. There does not appear to be
any currently online copy of its article and forum database. However
the
GRU/Ramzaj reports are still archived in many places on the net. For eg:
http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/war_reports.htm as well as still at Venik's http://www.aeronautics.ru (though apparently with no link from the index page there.)
So, historically, we have detailed coverage of the Iraq war for the periods:
GRU/Ramzaj reports: March 23rd, 2003 to April 8, 2003.
Gap- no coverage: April 9th 2003, to October 29th, 2003.
Iraqi resistance reports: October 30th, 2003 to the present.
Now we know more about the Battle of Baghdad Airport, which began
on Friday night, April 4th, 2003, and involved the near complete
annihilation of the US 3/7 Cavalry. At that time mainstream media
covered these these events with a great deal of confusion and
contradiction, and no mention of major US losses. The US then
apparently counter attacked the Iraqi defenders at the airport, using a
single neutron bomb, which wiped out all resistance. Of course this was
not mentioned by the media at all.
See http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=46449
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/02/1669628.php
(and others;Google: neutron baghdad airport)
Its not clear exactly what date and time this was done. Likely in
the range April 6th to 8th, 2003. This is perhaps the very first time a
tactical nuclear weapon has been used in a battlefield situation,
unless rumours of nukes used by the USA in Afghanistan can be verified.
At the time the Ramzaj reports ceased so suddenly, their stated
reason didn't seem to provide an adequate explanation for the halt. Now
perhaps we can make a more informed guess. The Russians knew the US had
used a tactical nuclear weapon in Iraq. A public accusation from a
Russian quasi-official source, that the USA had used a nuclear weapon
in Iraq, would have placed the Russian government in a very difficult
diplomatic position. The Ramzaj reports were attempting to stand out by
their truth in a sea of lies, but could now either lie, or admit that
Russia knew, or cease.
They chose to cease operation.
One line from their brief farewell notice on 8th April reads: "...
we do not have the right to reveal classified, 'top secret'
information."
Now we know what that information was.
TerraHertz
by Watcher Guest on 20.10.2004 [16:27 ]
|
|
|
I seriously doubt that the USAns could have used a neutron bomb at the
airport and still be using said airport continuously since that time
without radiation protection. Neutron bombs kill by irradiation, not
explosive force. The idea is you go back a few YEARS or DECADES later
and take the building/city/whatever.
|
by Pavel Guest on 20.10.2004 [16:36 ]
|
|
|
America's use of Neutron bombs and DU nuclear weapons on the Iraqi
people and civilization are massive crimes against humanity. Every
person on this planet must be engaged in defeating America and the
monsters perpetrating these pre-emptive wars for oil, resources and the
shitty little country of Israel. Start by rejecting US dollars and
boycotting all things American - movies, food chains, etc. etc.
|
by mocking_bird Guest on 20.10.2004 [17:01 ]
|
|
|
All things entails boycotting computers and internet bragging I presume.
|
by Syrian Guest on 20.10.2004 [17:21 ]
|
|
|
"I seriously doubt that the USAns could have used a neutron bomb at the
airport and still be using said airport continuously since that time
without radiation protection."
The airport was a no-go area for several months. So that
torpedo's that point you raised. They immediatly said "oh we're using
the airport now", but that was before they even really took it.
"Neutron bombs kill by irradiation, not explosive force. The idea
is you go back a few YEARS or DECADES later and take the
building/city/whatever."
As a scientist, I find that laughable. Neutron bombs, as the
name implies, are optimised for maximum neutron flux. It doesn't spray
waste everywhere, it's quite a sofisticated and inhuman weapon.
It will leave cement and other construction material and battle field material alone, while incenerating living flesh.
TerraHertz, thank you for standing up for the truth. This will come
out in the end, mark my word. I will dedicate years to get this bit of
truth which I witnessed unfold out.
|
by Syrian Guest on 20.10.2004 [17:26 ]
|
|
|
Computers - made first by a german.
Internet - developed internationally, notably by France, and the dutch computer scientist dijkstra.
Nice try. The fact is the USA likes to take credit for everything even though it didn't invent it.
|
by Anon Guest on 20.10.2004 [18:07 ]
|
|
|
Something did happen - That is not disputed. The nature of the weapon
used etc is not the primary issue as the total silence
Consider German Media or French or Indian Media or for that matter consider the governments, They are not fools.
The absolute silence is deafing - (The disconnect post April 8th 2003.
Why does the German or the french or the spanish or russian media
deal with it withsome coherence instead of bs that passes for Iraqi
reporting
|
by Serbian Guest on 20.10.2004 [18:49 ]
|
|
|
I remember reading a report that said the US removed the top soil from
the entire area of the airport and carried it off in trucks. Several of
the soldiers who were involved in this process later died. One of the
families became suspicious and complained, claiming that their son had
been exposed to WMD of some kind during the operation and that was why
he died. Also, all that topsoil was dumped near an Iraqi village and
soon afterwards many of the Iraqis there started to develop lesions on
their skin and their hair fell out.
Does anyone else remember reading a similar report? I don't know if
that would be an indication a neutron bomb was used or not, but it
certainly seems to indicate that some sort of unconventional weapon was
involved.
I also remember reading a report that neutron bombs were used in
the first Gulf War to take out deeply buried Iraqi command bunkers
right at the start of hostilities. Can't remember where I read that
though.
|
by zhen Cheng Guest on 20.10.2004 [19:13 ]
|
|
|
“There is mounting evidence a small nuclear device was used during the
battle for the airport. There have been reports of a mass grave at the
airport (both US and Iraqi, meaning the US bombed their own soldiers)
and for weeks after the invasion, the airport was entirely closed and
there were trucks removing topsoil. The place where they dumped the
topsoil (near the main prison in the country that is now being used to
house 'suspected terrorists' is still heavily guarded (why would they
guard a landfill?) and Iraqis who worked at the airport are reporting
illnesses, and soldiers there were told not to have physical contact
with them and not to share things like water.”
http://bunker.defcode.com/index.php?cat=1&page=1&paged=2
|
by zhen Cheng Guest on 20.10.2004 [19:16 ]
|
|
|
http://66.241.226.47/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=33
this only goes to backup the claims of nuclear weapons being used in the battle for baghdad airport (see url link for details)
"BAGHDAD, July 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Several
mysterious diseases were reported among a number of American troops
within the vicinity of Baghdad airport, a military source closely close
to NATO unveiled. U.S. soldiers deployed around Baghdad airport started showing
symptoms of mysterious fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on
the skin, the source, who refused to be named, said in statements
published Thursday, July 17, by the Saudi Al-Watan newspaper. He asserted that three soldiers who suffered these symptoms did
not respond to medical treatment in Iraqi hospitals and were flown to
Washington for medication. The military source reported a media blackout by U.S. officials to hide such information from the public.
The Americans claim the symptoms and the mysterious diseases were
resulting from exposure to the scourging sun, which the U.S. troops are
not used to, he added. U.S. officials did not come up with an explanation for the
symptoms, which NATO experts tend to believe result from direct
exposure to powerful nuclear radiations of the sophisticated B-2 bombs
used in the war on Iraq, particularly in striking Iraqi Republican
Guards forces who deployed to defend the vicinity of Baghdad airport."
|
by stopwar Guest on 20.10.2004 [20:11 ]
|
|
|
why has noone spoken out about it? Those who witnessed it and survived
would have been so sickened by such a thing that they would have gone
to the nearest radio or TV station and told the world... Wouldn't they?
Pity this can't get mainstream exposure in time for the US election...
|
by Dom on 20.10.2004 [20:26 ]
|
|
|
As time goes by I am more convinced that Iraqwar.ru was one of the
unique things I ever experienced in life. I have yet to see anything
like it. This site comes closest.
A lot of us were on Iraqwar every day from long before the war
until the day it conked out. Too bad we can't look it up now and again.
But then again, maybe life's too short for looking back. Once again.
the living humans outlast their own works.
I don't reckon there's much in this neutron bomb story. As for the
Ramsaj reports ceasing, that was not a surprise. They were too good.
They were bound to be stopped sooner or later.
|
by Guest on 20.10.2004 [21:42 ]
|
|
|
And all in the name of freedom, democracy, bla bla... New York,
Washington, LA, Detroit, etc. ? One day it will happen for sure. Pity
that too many innocents will die for the sins of a few.
|
by Watcher Guest on 21.10.2004 [03:35 ]
|
|
|
I may have been wrong about the time frame of the irradiation caused by
neutron bombs, but the blast from these things is still considerable
causing extensive local building damage and you would not be able to
escape irradiating a large area around the airport, where many people
live. So I am still somewhat skeptical (even though I wouldn't put it
past the bastards to do this).
You say "I will dedicate years to get this bit of truth which I witnessed unfold out."
What did you witness?
|
by Red Herring Guest on 21.10.2004 [03:40 ]
|
|
|
You are absolutely spot on. There was nothing like iraqar.ru.
That was what free speech looks like. Unmediated by money or power.
Lies called for what they were, without any diplomatic euphemisms.
It truly was a unique experience.
|
by Serbian Guest on 21.10.2004 [05:33 ]
|
|
|
I knew I read about that somewhere.
|
by Richard Steven Hack Guest on 21.10.2004 [05:38 ]
|
|
|
- not the neutron bomb bit anyway. Although I did meet a former US Seal
in the joint who told me the US had indeed used tactical nukes during
the first Gulf War. If it was done in the desert against some
Republican Guard bunker, nobody would likely be able to tell it from
just a large bunker-buster bomb if there wasn't much aboveground
damage. And if they were used on underground bunkers, much of the
radiation would have been absorbed by the surrounding earth. As for the
Baghdad airport, who knows? Maybe they used chemical or biological
weapons - or just a ton of DU weapons - which required removing the
topsoil. Or maybe they just removed the topsoil because they thought
the whole frigging place was mined and they just bulldozed the whole
business. Who knows? We have no credible sources one way or the other.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [05:58 ]
|
|
|
Radiation, yes, Lingering radiation, no. Besides, who cares if a few white trash and ghetto boys get leukemia?
Quote (http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm):
"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.
I don't know what happened, but yes, a neutron bomb doesn't conflict with the few facts we have. I have no doubt Usans would have resorted to this, USA being the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and these were even used against civilians.
"Hasta la victoria, siempre!"
|
by Serbian Guest on 21.10.2004 [06:25 ]
|
|
|
And I knew that the Americans absolutely had to occupy Saddam Airport,
then I would take all the DU that was collected from the first Gulf
War, truck it to the airport ahead of the Americans and then blow it
all to dust just as the Americans were about to take it over.
|
by OutSide Guest on 21.10.2004 [08:56 ]
|
|
|
Condoleezza Rice has been in Moscow for a "Blitz"-Visit on April 7th
2003. She certainly didn't go there for a free lunch... . I wonder what
was up beside the incident about Bagdads Ambassador (Wladimir
Titorenko) beeing shot by the USA.
However, the neutrons of a tactical neutrom bomb would certainly
activate a number of the elements in the surrounding area, but most of
the isotopes produced have a reasonable short decay time.
|
by john Guest on 21.10.2004 [09:53 ]
|
|
|
hi
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [10:29 ]
|
|
|
{the neutrons of a tactical neutrom bomb would certainly activate a
number of the elements in the surrounding area, but most of the
isotopes produced have a reasonable short decay time.}
Exaclty! And much of it would have been removed if they did remove
the topsoil. And again, what Zionist worthy of the title would care
about irradiating a few Goyim cattle slaves, or even nuking them
outright?
Again, I don't know what happened, but there is no evidence to contradict the claims of a neutron bomb detonated on the airport.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [10:53 ]
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot, most of the activation that contaminates the nuked area (fallout) comes from soil
pushed by the nuclear fireball, and is max when detonation is (1) large
and (2) 0-altitude or underground. The lighter elements that make up
air and water do not activate as easily as the heavier ones that make
up soil, buildings, etc, and form isotopes with short half-lives. A
neutron bomb is an airburst that carries little physical punch,
hence, while there is a lot of neutrons to cause activation, there is
little fallout created and most activated atoms are gaseous (activated
air) and thus disperse very fast.
|
by predax Guest on 21.10.2004 [11:52 ]
|
|
|
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/appendix/appendixD.pdf
quote : "Appendix D: Iraqi Resistance Report IV
Compiled from Different Arab Sources
The Free Arab Voice, April 6, 2003
If anyone still has any doubt that the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt has been
lying about the magnitude of its losses in this war, he or she should take a very
hard look at the footage of the wreckage of destroyed Coalition invader tanks and
armored vehicles that were left split open like discarded cans of sardines around
the area of Saddam’s International Airport.
Such charred up and blown up tanks and armored vehicles in the vicinity of the
airport were shown today on all major Arab satellite TV stations. Given the
ferocity of the battle that raged around the airport, and the number of Coalition
machinery (sic) left behind, it would take a very stubborn person to insist that the
figure of two or three American casualties that Coalition sources reported were
incurred in the battle of the airport is the correct one.
In fact, after journalists and reporters from non-Iraqi media were allowed to visit
the vicinity of the airport, including a reporter of Al Manar TV of the pro-Iranian
Hizbullah, it would take a very stubborn person indeed to insist that American
troops are maintaining control of Saddam’s airport as the Western media continues
to claim."
|
by mocking_bird Guest on 21.10.2004 [12:06 ]
|
|
|
sure I quite agree with your last statement being albeit no expert in
priority questions at all. odd thing here is, it calls for real brains
to lay hand on proper things. and to implement right people. I spoke
about boycotting and certainly no "try" .
|
by Layth Guest on 21.10.2004 [14:31 ]
|
|
|
That hundrends of US invaders were killed by the Iraqi Republican Guard
and Fidayeen at the beginning of the battle for Saddam Airport is not
in doubt (corroborated by eyewitness reports, and US media leaks).
That a massacure later occured (using nutron bomb or other WMD's)
at the airport killing upto 23,000 Iraqi Republican Guard also is not
in doubt.
The question that is not being asked is: "Why would 23,000 Iraqi
troops be out in the open at the airport whereby they could be killed
in such bombing?"
I believe the logical answer (and the reason Condi was in Russia,
and the reason why the Russians closed down all intellegence reporting
therefater) is that the US murdered its own troops along with the Iraqi
Republican forces.
For 23,000 Iraqi fighters to be out in the open means they were
engaged in fighting with US troops and the possibility of an airstrike
would have been impossible (to their minds)...Someone in the satanic
White House took a decision to possibly sacrifice 2,000-3,000 US troops
in order to get Iraqi troops out in the open and eliminate once and for
all the fighting threat posed by the Republican Guard.
The US does not shy away from flaunting that it killed Iraqi forces
en masses...But this is the only logical explanation why they burried
this battle and why the media were targeted and killed on the approach
to Baghdad.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [14:38 ]
|
|
|
{albeit no expert in priority questions at all.}
A common trait of Usans. Otherwise, how could they claim to have invented so many thind they, by priority, did not invent at all?
{All things entails boycotting computers and internet bragging I presume.}
Oh no, we are taking them over. Last time I opened a computer, the
only things that had no "MADE IN CHINA" on them had "MADE IN KOREA".
That goes for hardware. As for software, just three words for you: Frente Pingüinista de Liberación.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [14:49 ]
|
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with you, the Usandals killing their own pirates.
No, not that I think they are not capable of that, they very well are,
and have done that before. No, I just think there is a simpler
explanation: if they did indeed use a nuke or other WMD against Iraqi
troops, admitting the fact would not only an admission of the USA being
a monster rogue nation (we all know that already) but and admission of weakness. Can you imagine, now, the implications, of the Most Powerful Army on Earth(TM) having to resort to nukes when confronted by such an enemy as Iraq, small, weakened by a war and years of criminal blockade? That the Mighty Uncle Sam had to nuke Iraq???
That's reason enough. That's probably the correct explanation, too.
The implications are even larger than murdering their own mercenaries,
don't you think? Ask the Cubans and Mexicans, for example. Or Iranians.
"Hasta la victoria, siempre!"
|
by Layth Guest on 21.10.2004 [15:05 ]
|
|
|
The US uses napalm, cluster bombs, DU and all other varients on a
regular basis in Iraq...That there would be a 'moral problem' with them
using a nutron bomb is not on the table of US thought.
Also, the quesiton is not what weapon they used, but "WHY" 23,000
Iraqi Republican Guard would be out in the open and exposed to an
aerial attack wherupon they were all murdered.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [15:14 ]
|
|
|
{The US uses napalm, cluster bombs, DU and all other varients on a
regular basis in Iraq...That there would be a 'moral problem' with them
using a nutron bomb is not on the table of US thought. }
Do you miss my point? No moral issue, the issue is about USA ability of bullying other countries. Yes, the question is very much the weapon they used. If USA cross the nuclear 'Line' against such a foe as Iraq, the world would laugh at their threats from them on.
|
by stopwar Guest on 21.10.2004 [18:13 ]
|
|
|
the US military are joking about annihilating the insurgents around
Fallujah (which they call the foreign fighters that killed Ken Bigley).
The latter mantra is repeated by Blair, Hoon, and some of the British
military.
|
by Syrian Guest on 21.10.2004 [20:58 ]
|
|
|
That's exactly it. If you remember, the military doctorine of the USA
is to use WMD when battle field reports are "suprising". What could
suprise them more than losing land that they said they had before even
attempting to capture it? How embarrasing would that be? The USA has
only one thing: it's image. It's army is actually pretty much pathetic,
they are only able to take on countries which have either been weakened
by war, or are only armed with rifles.
RSH and others would poo-ho this valid argument, but their lack of
knowledge on these kind of weapons force them to make the incorrect
conculsion. The neutron bombs have very little heat compared to a
fission bomb of a similiar yield.
But the evidence is mounting and it'll eventually be exposed.
|
by Syrian Guest on 21.10.2004 [20:58 ]
|
|
|
- Mike
uk has a video of the airport battle, which should indicate how bad it
went for the USAns. I have seen live feeds of this, with Iraqis
laughing as the put their arms around captured USAn paratroopers.
- There have been press statements by the resistance, which
stated the number of deaths at the airport battle at around 10s of
thousands.
- There was an unexplained shortage of power and phonelines in
baghdad. This is obvious, when you figure it all out. Three words:
Electro Magnetic Pulse.
- Very early reports indicated that the USA had used a "MOAB".
In truth no such weapon exists. The concept of it, in conjunction with
the ridicolus "e-Bomb", was a smoke and mirror tactic to have an excuss
if a WMD was used. They probably felt that it was far too obvious are
the airport battle to use this tactic, and all mention of the "MOAB"
was ceased.
- The USA would NEVER shy from using such weapons, they are the only country which has used it before against another country.
- The USA does not give a damn about the "morals" that the world sees it with. As Don Gaucho said, it's all about military image.
- The airport area was out of bounds for several months,
probably while the evidence of the battle and the final usage of the
neutron bomb was clear.
I rarely make statements which I cannot back up. This is definetly not one of those things which I cannot back up.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [01:20 ]
|
|
|
Chyort vozmi!!! Puta madre!!! I never made the connection!
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [01:29 ]
|
|
|
(I sent previous message prematurely)
Chyort vozmi and puta madre!!! I never made the connection! Yes, that does fit the facts!!! Oh golly. An EMP from a nuke blast would have had exactly that effect. Oh shit.
Again, I'm not convinced of the detonation of a NB over Bagdhad
airport. We have no evidence of it, nada, only mounting circumstantial
evidence. But we have no falsifying evidence either, none whatsoever.
Oh, my the significance of this wild card, if true!!! Can you see it?
Can you, people, truly? THINK about this, very very very carefully,
follow those twisting and elusive chains of connection to the deepest
and farthest reaches they lead to...
In 5 letters: PUSAW.
|
by Layth Guest on 22.10.2004 [02:18 ]
|
|
|
Don, I did not understand your conclusion. Assume the US did use a
nutron or small nuke...What implications would there be as they are
expected by all major powers to use anything in their arsenal to win.
As Syrian pointed out, better for their image to use a nuke than to
lose the airport to a bunch of ill equiped and malnutritioned Iraqis.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [02:38 ]
|
|
|
BTW: "Don" is not short for Donald, it's a title, aking to old English mister/master.
You are not doing your homework, Layth! :) Think more carefully. Do
follow those threads. It's better for all of us if you can do this
yourself; you probably can add or correct, or even refute the whole
argument.
As for the points of the threads: where does USA prosperity and
power come from? Why is the US dollar so important? What changes would
bring forth, in the "hearts & minds" of the people of different
countries, if the USA had to resort to using nukes against a
non-nuclear, weak adversary and it became known? What would
follow these changes, how would the USA and others be affected? Would
the changes be self-suppressing (negative feedback) or self-amplifying
(positive feedback)? If self-amplifying, is the system convergent or
divergent? In either case: can you characterize the one or more likely
outcome types (scenarios)? I suggest you make a graph--computer science
can help with something called "flow diagrams". Chart the possible ways
the world could go, and assign likelihoods to each branch at each fork,
and add them at at each terminal node (possible typical outcome).
Can you identify historical parallels? How accurate are those
parallels? If they are any good, what does the past tell you about the
future?
Think my friend, do as Usans don't. Take your time, because
a real analysis of such a magnitude will take time. Let me know what
your conclusions are.
|
by Xuma Cien Guest on 22.10.2004 [03:39 ]
|
|
|
A military superpower maintains its superpower status, in part, by
bluffing. America appears like a superpower to many people in the
world. But America "unzipped its fly" in Iraq and exposed to the world
that it is not the super power that the world thought it was. It's a
huge national security blunder for America. Enemies of America will
take advantage of this.
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:09 ]
|
|
|
Another significant thing here, is that on this site's front page my
article about why the Ramzaj reports ceased appears immediately after
three articles posted by the Ramzaj group, comprising a complete repost
of all the original Ramzaj Iraq War reports.
When I submitted my article, I mentioned to the site editor that I
was hoping my article would appear in that position, and for some
response from Ramzaj. After a delay of nearly two days the article was
posted untouched. (Complete with typos, sigh.)
I consider it possible that Ramzaj was consulted, and that my
article being then posted may be considered an indirect (yet denyable)
verification of its central theme - that the Ramzaj reports ceased due
to the use of a nuclear weapon by US forces in Iraq. And the difficult
diplomatic position in which Ramzaj then found themselves.
It would probably be rude of me to directly ask the editor if this
was so. The same situation continues today - no source with even faint
traces of Russian official sanction can be seen to formally verify the
neutron bomb story.
So, despite Ramzaj being very much still active, I don't expect
any comment from them. Sure wish they would though. Absolute
confirmation just before the coming election, that the Bush
administration commanded the use of a nuke (possibly sacrificing large
numbers of their own troops) ... yes!
Note that there are 3 pages in the story; pages 2 and 3 are just lists of Iraq war news links.
Thanks to whoever at iraq-war.ru troubled to activate all the plain text URLs.
I should have realised a lot of people would not actually know what
a neutron bomb is, and its immediate and long term effects. Hence the
assorted misconceptions in some reader comments. An explanation is
called for I guess.
Before I go to the trouble of researching and writing that, does
anyone have a link to something definative that would save me the
trouble?
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:46 ]
|
|
|
Dammed tease!
OK, I've worn out my thinker for today. Yes, I can see a number of
critical consequences of this (NBing opponents at the drop of a hat.)
However, I'm not very confident of my geopolitical forecasting
abilities, when I have access to maybe 0.000001% of relevent data.
Besides, in general I expect the post-peak-oil (futile) struggles
to grasp the last energy reserves will involve use of all available
weapons, since TPTB are ignorant vandals beneath their rich robes. So I
don't see that one neutron bomb makes any difference in the _long_
term.
How about you post your thoughts?
Oh, and what mean PUSAW? Google is no help, except to find you used the term elsewhere recently.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:23 ]
|
|
|
PUSAW? I think it's Ted's, from my Post-USA World.
Peak oil? I'm not sure of that. Geochemical origin of petroleum
makes a convincing case. If this is true, reserves are staggering. But
they might be hard to get at, and perhaps the USA lacks the necesary
tech?
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:26 ]
|
|
|
OK, just a few things as they pop off my troubled mind :)
Conduct an informal poll of people you consider representative.
BTW: Are you in the USA of in the Free World? Ask people how they think
they'd react to the revelation that the USA resorted to nuclear weapons when fighting such a foe as Iraq?
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:30 ]
|
|
|
I think this scenario is very likely. Check my assumptions and logic.
The USA is now an unrepenting, unforgiven, rabid Rogue State who
will use nukes at a whim against anyone, while at the same it is
revealed as a weak fighting force, a far cry from the purported
Mightiest War Machine on Earth(TM) propaganda. Roll this on your mind,
bounce it around a little.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:41 ]
|
|
|
What do you think other countries will do with such an unrestrained nuclear bully, such a clear and present danger against everyone on this planet? Rember the paradox of this rogue, this bully, revealed as a wimp
when someone, no matter how weak, actually stands the ground and fight.
How likely do you think a worldwide embargo is, to try and weaken this
monster by starvation? How likely one or more alliances against this
common, unappeasable, all-threatening criminal? Do you think a
true preemtive strike is unlikely? Is it unconceivable that sucha a
defensive preemtive strike will not resort to WMD, given that the
Pandora box is now open?
Maybe other posters can state what they would do; Gaucho, under
those conditions, will store his good will in a freezer, and grab
nuclear boleadoras and a poisoned gutting facón. Enough is enough, it
ends here, if they mean to nuke everyone, let it begin now.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:48 ]
|
|
|
What of the US dolor??? Enough said on that.
Other. Can you say global citizens boycott against anything
Usan? Not just goods, but culture, attitudes, even English language.
How much do you think the Usan influence on the "hearts & minds" of
the world will be decreased? Will this affect USA's geopolitical and
economic standing, how and how much?
Other. Inteligentsia in the USA, both Usan and foreign resident
(and remember how utterly dependent USA is on foreign brains!), will
not just pack and GO!? Usans themselves not merely out of
outrage and shame, but of well-based fear of reprisals? How will this,
only this one thing, the braindrain, affect the USA?
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:54 ]
|
|
|
Most countries that are servile to the USA, are so only because of a
ruling elitte only remains in power because of the USA backing them.
Think of the dictatorships all over America, and the opposition to
Chávez. How long, after US suppport is no longer there, until these
traitors are hanged with their own instestines? What kind of people and
ideologies are likely to replace them? Will they be pro-Usan? Neutral?
Fiercely anti-Usan? How likely that Usan bases, business, and other
concerns, are razed to the ground. Example: how long will Guantánamo
Base in Occupied Cuba last? I'd probably fight myself in that one!
How long will IsraHell last? Years? Months? Days? Hours? Minutes?
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [06:05 ]
|
|
|
How likely do you think it is that some states of the Usan union will
try to shake the leprosy by secesion? Alaska, Hawaii, California,
Puerto Rico, just for starters. How likely, given this and other new
prevailing conditions in the USA (economic collapse, lost of
inteligentsia, citizen outrage at Washington, foreing threats and even
attacks), that this will lead to the Second Usan Civil War? Will other
countries act as mediators and peacekeepers, or will they encourage
such a war? Even seize the chance to attack the USA (a clear and
present rabid unapeasable nuclear danger, please remember)? How much do
you think that what emerges out of this war will resemble present-day
superpower USA?
What will happen to everything advanced in the USA, the country
under boycott and even blockade, with little or no oil, no electronics
imports, no money from exports, and with the inteligentia lost? How
much do you think will this decrease geopolitical weight of the USA?
It's military might? Will this not increase both the likelihood and
severity of a potential civil war?
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [06:17 ]
|
|
|
Well, there is more, much much more. You can think of it yourself, and others here could also post their predictions.
But one think I believe is clear and key: we do not need to know
all of it, or even be right on everything, because I think the system
change under these assumptions would clearly be self-amplyfying and
convergent. If you do not get the idea, think of Joshua playin Global
Thermonuclear War in that movie War Games: No matter how you start and
what moves are made, it ends the same way.
In this case, I think there would be a convergent result of the self-amplifying change, and this I name "PUSAW".
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [06:28 ]
|
|
|
Then again, maybe I got it all wrong!!!
So take it all cum grano salis. I have no divine revelation to
share, not access to secret intelligence, am not even Ramzaj! I do have
(I think) a mind (INTP/INTJ) well suited to this kind of excersise, and
I *have* been right in the past when many 'proffessional' 'opinadores'
had been utterly wrong.
And again, I point out I am not yet convinced a nuke was used at Badhad airport!
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [07:29 ]
|
|
|
Thanks, Don Gaucho. I do agree that the USA is certain to go down in
flames, and shattering of the 'superpower' illusion will accellerate
the process. Also, that the process has a high degree of positive
feedback.
Where I differ, I think, is on whether this collapse will be
confined to the USA, or global. You see only the USA in ruins, I expect
the entire world to fall back to primitive conditions (and worse.)
Here's a reference: 'The Collapse of Complex Societies', Joseph A.
Tainter. Try abebooks.com, www.biblioquest.com.au etc for copies.
Its a historical analysis of why social collapses are extremely
self-amplifying, and hence tend to occur very suddenly. And hence
unexpectedly by the majority of a society, of course.
There are many works also on the inability of any known alternative
energy source to substitute for oil, on the basis of EPR (energy profit
ratio) arguments. I can post a list if you like.
Even nuclear (fission) has EPR problems, over the total reactor
life cycle. Fusion... a wildcard, best described as 'not yet/too late'.
As for geochemical oil, there are several questions, even apart
from 'does it exist' (I've been slack, not yet researched much.) Such
as what is the EPR (energy profit ratio) for oil obtained from very,
very deep wells? If its poor, such as below 20, then even if quantities
are huge, running an energy-hungry industrial society on it is
problematical.
As well, even if most current shallow fields _are_ being
replenished from below, what is the global replenishment _rate_,
compared to our present rate of oil consumption?
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [07:30 ]
|
|
|
The replenishment rate is obviously much lower than current usage. But
what size industrial society could survive long-term on only the oil
replenishment supply? A rather small society, I suspect.
That would be OK (rather pleasant world to live in too, I think.)
But how do we get _there_ from _here_? Reducing the current size of
global industry, without triggering armed conflicts, mass starvation
and/or a snowballing destructive descent into barbarism, seems
impossible, unless...
I suspect that the elites have thought this through long ago, and
have a variety of depopulation strategies up their sleeves. Some of
these are clearly in play (thimerosol, aspartame, canola, flouridation,
ubiquitous carcinogens, etc), other more drastic measures are 'primed
to deploy' (chemtrails, bioweapons, PVR & seedbank destruction,
etc.)
Personally, I think attempts to avoid a chaotic collapse are
optimistic at best. Many expect the fall to occur very soon
(dieoff.org, the_dieoff_QA@yahoogroups.com, etc)
One question that intrigues me - assuming a coming age of barbarism
and near-total loss of technological knowledge, what happens to all the
long half-life radioactives we have created? Over several thousand
years of weathering and scavenging by low-tech people, ultimately most
of it will become distributed throughout the biosphere.
How much of it is there, really? What background radiation level
would be expected after say, 100,000 years? Enough to completely
sterilise the planet?
I fear it may be so.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [07:50 ]
|
|
|
Differ? Not really. I think the process is convergent, yes, but I was
writing about PUSAW. The process is convergent on the dimension of a
much diminished importance or outright dissapearance of the USA.
On other dimensions, though, it is quite divergent and in fact
highly chaotic! I did not describe the PUSAW, in fact, there are many
possible PUSAWs. A post-apocalyptic PUSAW is one of them, and a very
likely one. But even this post-apocalyptic world would qualify for
PUSAW: whoever and whatever survives, it won't be Usan, because USA
will be hit harder than anyone else, because it'd be hit by
everyone else. And if anyone from USA were to survive... they would be
blamed for the whole think and taken revenge upon!
About the energy crisis: I think you are far too pessimistic and
thinking too linearly. Energy consupmtion is highly dependent on the
kind of technology used. We have been using astonishingly wasteful
tech. We can use other kinds, and some of them are incredibly
efficient. I am not talking about a Brave New Technology. We have it
now, or we could if we tried. But we do not use and develop it, because
it's not good for the kind of BIG BUSSINESS Bush and those like him
like. Prosperity is bad for them, when people are prosperous, they take
no shit from anyone.
There is no reason to believe that a global techonogical welfare is unatttainable, and that it's downhill from now on.
That said, severe social disruption is very likely, but not
necesarily unavoidable or terminal. The PUSAW almost certainly will be
a rough ride, but if we make it throught, it could lead us to a very
pleasant place to live our lives in peace and prosperity.
About killing life on Earth: Gaia is a tough bitch, as the saying goes.
|
by Erebus Guest on 22.10.2004 [08:57 ]
|
|
|
Is "PUSAW" an acronym, a word (perhaps not English), or what?
If I understand PUSAW contextually, it predicts the immediate fall
of the USA to an internationally recognized pariah state if it comes
out that a Neutron bomb was used. This will have immediate and
devastating effect on USA power. More critically, it will force
national govts to condemn the USA, loud and clear. This will not be
easy for them to do.
If so, this must be in contrast to a slower decline to pariah
state due to all the other usual reasons.... peak oil, petro-dollar
devaluation, debt, etc
My PUSAW understanding aside, Terrahertz and Don Gaucho are pretty
much "on the money". The 21st century will see some brutal changes...
|
by panzerdusko Guest on 22.10.2004 [09:08 ]
|
|
|
Can you show some of oictures or video of Bagdad Airport Battle that You mentioned.Or some link.Please
|
by mocking_bird Guest on 22.10.2004 [09:46 ]
|
|
|
let me note, "trait" has a train of peculiar meanings. and as Henry
Ford stated long before , not Americans but Jews are absorbers of
alien's ideas. Wise American, indeed.
" Frente Pingüinista de Liberación. " sorry, I don't get you and
this language either. And the importance of where an iron thing had
been made, given ideas were in some iron fist.
|
by panzerdusko Guest on 22.10.2004 [10:21 ]
|
|
|
Pictures or video or some more info please.
|
by Watcher Guest on 22.10.2004 [12:53 ]
|
|
|
Long time ago, in a nearby cave to the village, there lived a giant
called Kele. Kele would satisfy his hunger by devouring the animals and
crops raised by the villagers led by Ka Makar.
There was one kind of plant, which to Kele was very delicious. The
plant was locally known as "Pusaw", of the fern family with spreading
stalks covered with tiny leaves. People used the plants as herbal
medicine and could also be used as hog feeds. The people began to worry
when the said plants became scarce because Kele harvested it for his
daily consumption.
One day, Ka Makar, the most respected elder in the locality,
gathered the adults in the neighborhood for a meeting. Together with
his wife Ka Lea, cousin Ka Kiko and volunteers agreed to drive Kele out
from that place. They stormed the mouth of Kele's cave with torches and
kept it burning like the volcano Limbu. Giant Kele disappeared and
surprisingly the plant "pusaw" became rare and eventually vanished.
The natives could not help recounting the incident that they
thought was the cause of the loss of the precious plant. The name
"pusaw" became everyone's byword and called their village after it. The
place was later named as Busao.
- story from Barangay Busao, Philippines
now you know what Pusaw is
(and see who Kele is)
|
by Cynic Guest on 22.10.2004 [15:11 ]
|
|
|
now you know what Pusaw is (and see who Kele is) - I'm still in the dark, enlighten me
|
by stopwar on 22.10.2004 [16:50 ]
|
|
|
Does this fit what has been described?
"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."
link
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [17:02 ]
|
|
|
I'm just guessing mind you. And I don't know why Don Gaucho wouldn't
say "Its an acronym, short for ...." Maybe he likes to keep people on
their toes?
Then again, thanks to Watcher for the story. Yes, the ongoing
destruction of America derives from the elite's desire to eliminate
freedom. As one step in the road they travel.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [17:25 ]
|
|
|
Sorry, sorry, no I was not trying to be obscure. I thought I had made this perfectly clear, it's really obvious.
I've, and others, have been using that expresion and "Post-USA
World" in my postings all the time, for quite a while. Then Tet (I
think it was him) ahd the brilliant idea of coining the accronym
"PUSAW" and started using it, and I (and others too?) followed. I had
just explained this in an earlier post.
Keeping things on their toes? But of course!!! But not in this case.
If this "Kele" giant is supposed to be a metaphor for Mighty Uncle Sam, he can kiss my Pampasic arse. That USA is a provider for the rest of the word... the very idea! Usans follow the ol' holy British tradition of state-sponsored piracy as national economy (ever heard of Governor Sir Henry Morgan?). Who are the 2 pirates that invaded Irak? I thought so.
|
by Cynic Guest on 22.10.2004 [23:06 ]
|
|
|
I think I must be real dumb, I still haven't got it
|
by Guest on 22.10.2004 [23:08 ]
|
|
|
linux
|
by stopwar Guest on 23.10.2004 [02:07 ]
|
|
|
God Bless Torvalds (and Berners-Lee)
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 23.10.2004 [02:39 ]
|
|
|
God bless them and others too, but He should start by blessing RMS (if God exists, that is).
FPL "Hasta la victoria, siempre!"
|
by mocking_bird Guest on 23.10.2004 [09:01 ]
|
|
|
nice to remind me of linux. here I'm no expert either but from the
looks of the thing it's devised for internet and not readily fits for
some specific needs quite clear in Win9x but hidden in NT.
|
by stopwar Guest on 23.10.2004 [11:25 ]
|
|
|
No corporate in sight! There are commercially available implementations
but the code is still freely available on the Internet, and constantly
being improved through the sort of worldwide cooperation that has made
the Internet itself such a robust system.
Someone should make it more user-friendly!
|
by Truth Seeker Guest on 23.10.2004 [16:40 ]
|
|
|
Mandrake 10 with the latest 2.6 kernel and new KDE desktop is more user
friendly than Windows. If I had to rebegin with computers from scratch
that's the OS I would probably start with unless I would choose the new
Debian still in beta and that comes fairly close to Windows in terms of
ease of use and installation and benefits from the largest archive of
precompiled software packages.
The Dynebolic live distro running entirely from CD and designed
with media activists in mind is worth having as well and easy to use.
Everyone should have a copy of Knoppix.
|
by Watcher Guest on 23.10.2004 [17:34 ]
|
|
|
I thought in the story if the giant Kele was the US, 'pusaw' would be
oil. Maybe without the dominance of the US oil corporations, we'd find
something else to use for energy. Just a pipe dream.
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 24.10.2004 [09:16 ]
|
|
|
Some links to sites with detailed info on both Neutron Bombs and garden variety nukes:
Description of neutron bomb
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/neutron%20bomb
Interview with neutron bomb inventor
http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm
Just about everything on nukes
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
Introduction to Nuclear Weapon Physics and Design
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq2.html
Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions (thanks Truth Seeker)
http://www.milnet.com/nukeweap/Nfaq5.html#nfaq5.2
Interesting cross connection- in the Cohen interview, he clearly
verifies that red mercury exists, and makes possible the construction
of micronukes, also micro-neutron-bombs. Oh great.
|
by TerraHertz Guest on 24.10.2004 [09:25 ]
|
|
|
Here's some for sale, maybe:
http://www.ec21.com/app/servlet/RequestProcessor?event=TradeLeadsDetail.Click&offer_id=OF0000085941
Note that the Oxygen isotope ratio is normal, the Mercury isotopes
are a little skewed (possibly within measurement error), however, the
Antimony contains traces of a very short half life isotope (Sb125),
that should not be present at all! This appears to prove that the
compound (at least the Hg-Sb) has been exposed to high energy radiation
- fast neutrons or protons perhaps.
Producing a compound who's own chemical explosion provides the
excitation to release the much greater energy stored in the 'affected'
mercury atoms.
As for what that 'effect' is, both hints I've read, and my guess,
is that one or more electrons are removed from an inner electron shell.
And that this configuration is relatively stable, despite its high
energy differential from 'rest' state.
Perhaps mercury atoms in this form have a decay half life, and so
'red mercury' gradually degrades, till it is mere ordinary mercury
antimony oxide - a garden variety explosive. And thats what these
people are selling?
From the web site, with my additions
Red Mercury Antimony Oxide (for sale)
Matrix Hg2Sb207
Purity 99,99%
Form Powder
Color Dark brown of Burgundy
Isotopic composition% Natural abundance%, from DOE
Hg196 0.16 0.15%
Hg198 10.2 10.1%
Hg199 18.8 17%
Hg200 23.1 23.10%
Hg201 13.22 13.20%
Hg202 29.8 29.65%
Hg204 6.8 6.80%
O16 99.76 99.762%
O17 0.037 0.038%
O18 0.2 0.200%
Sb121 57.25 57.3%
Sb123 42.7 42.7%
Sb125 0.04 0.0% half life: 2.76 yr beta emission !!!!!
Quantity: 100 kg
Price: FOB Moscow USD 35,000 per kg
|
by Kalashnikov Guest on 31.10.2004 [02:12 ]
|
|
|
Even though the blast effects of a neutron bomb are limited and it
kills by a heavy dose of neutrons it is still the result of a fusion a
thermonuclear explosion which could have been seen by reporters
pointing their cameras towards the airport. To achieve a thermonuclear
explosion it would be necessary to use a fission reaction. All this
would have created a spectacular sight in the Baghdad sky. I strongly
suspect some form of chemical weapon was used or a fuel air explosive.
|
by grob Guest on 31.10.2004 [07:31 ]
|
|
|
At night, petrol was pumped into the first floor. The ground floor of
the passenger terminal was flooded with water. An 11 KV current passed
through the water. The first floor was then set on fire causing the US
soldiers to rush downstairs — to be electrocuted. Heaven knows how many
were killed.
http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=46449
|
by guest Guest on 23.11.2004 [02:55 ]
|
|
|
Here I was hoping the planet would cleanse itself and beat us to it.
She is quite capabible of healing herself, without us. Looking at
what's happening in Iraq, I'm putting a word in with her to start with
the USA at least well have something to watch before our turn rolls
around.
|
|