Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Archangel accuses ShadowPikachu of being "Dishonest"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hear that breathing behind you?
    Posts
    1,913

    Archangel accuses ShadowPikachu of being "Dishonest"

    In my recent thread on the Gay Rights forums, Archie accused me of being Dishonest.
    Here was my opening post on the thread:
    From CNN


    On the first Sunday after a gay marriage ban passed in California, activists rallied in defiance, including hundreds of protesters outside an Orange County megachurch whose pastor brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."

    About 300 gay-rights advocates fanned out along sidewalks leading to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest to voice their anger of the church's support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters Tuesday that overturns a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex unions.

    Ed Todeschini, a Human Rights Campaign volunteer, accused Saddleback in particular of helping propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners.

    A message seeking comment left at the church's main office, which was closed Sunday, was not immediately returned.

    "They told such obvious lies. They used their lies to deceive the public," Todeschini said of the church, which gained national attention in August when its pastor, Rick Warren, brought Obama and McCain together to discuss their religious faith. The two candidates embraced during an often-contentious presidential campaign.

    Todeschini said Sunday's rally was peaceful, with demonstrators waving placards with slogans including "Equality for all" and "Shame on you."

    The amendment was passed last week with 52 percent of the vote, and backlash at churches over their support swept across California on Sunday after days of protests.

    In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety. Protest organizers said they hoped to tone down the anger that has characterized some previous demonstrations.

    "Our intent is not to disturb churchgoers," organizer Tim DeBenedictis said in a statement. "Our goal is to mend fences and build bridges so that all Californians can achieve marriage equality under the law."

    The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing." Watch iReport on protests in Los Angeles »

    The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.

    "It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," the Rev. Ed Bacon said after his sermon. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on same-sex marriage

    In Sacramento, a protest at the state Capitol was boisterous but peaceful as speakers led the crowd in noisy chants. Protesters waved rainbow flags, a symbol of the gay rights movement, and "No on 8" signs as police watched from the side.

    Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed disappointment at Proposition 8's passage.

    "It is unfortunate," Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."
    I'm glad to see that at least some pastors in this world have integrity and are not bigoted and want all citizens to have the same rights. It's refreshing to see that there are many churches like this (my own is similar), but I wish there were more who were not bigoted. The others give Christianity a bad name and cause people to associate Jesus and the church with intolerance and removal of equal rights.

    Oh, and couldn't agree more with Ahnuld.
    Then Archangel made THIS POST, accusing me of being dishonest:
    Great, and typically dishonest of you to post about the opinion of an Episcopal church which is pro gay and one of the most liberal in Souther California: All Saints Episcopal Church is an Episcopal church in Pasadena, California. It is widely claimed to be one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches, and is the largest Episcopal parish west of the Mississippi. It belongs to the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. All Saints is known to support gays and lesbians, opposes the death penalty, opposes the Iraq war, and supports anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan. Can you find a bible believing church that agrees with them?

    All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I would like Archangel to defend his accusations that I was "dishonest" to post an article that quoted a pastor of the Episcopal church.

    Please defend your claims Archie, or retract them.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    I find it amusing that opposing the Iraq war is considered a sign of a "liberal" church. Pretty much every major denomination, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Dubya's own United Methodists opposed the Iraq war. It's not about liberal or conservative, it's about moral and immoral. Ditto the death penalty.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  3. #3
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu
    I would like Archangel to defend his accusations that I was "dishonest" to post an article that quoted a pastor of the Episcopal church.

    Please defend your claims Archie, or retract them.
    Sorry, I can't retract it even though you were being either your spiritually ignorant or spiritually dishonest anti-christian self, so I'll defend it until we figure this out, ok? You were either being spiritually dishonest or spiritually ignorant by claiming, and I quote you: I'm glad to see that at least some pastors in this world have integrity and are not bigoted and want all citizens to have the same rights. Your dishonesty lies in claiming that pastors who support homosexuality have (religious) integrity when what they believe and practice goes against everything their own bible says about what homosexuality stands for in Gods sight.

    And then to hold them up as examples in which to condemn churches/pastors which do hold to Gods word regarding this issue, that too appears very dishonest of you, unless you're claiming ignorance. Are you ignorant or dishonest SP? If you're admitting to spiritual ignorance, then I guess I will retract calling you dishonest, do I retract it? You tell me.

    You also said this, which not only showed a lack of spiritual integrity but was totally dishonest, or again, just ignorant. and I quote you once again: but I wish there were more who were not bigoted. The others give Christianity a bad name and cause people to associate Jesus and the church with intolerance and removal of equal rights.

    To call the religious Right bigoted is also dishonest or spiritually ignorant because we aren't motivated by any bigotry at all, nor do we hold any personal animosity toward homosexuals. Our position is based on honoring what God say's about this practice being unnatural and an abomination before Him, in His word, so we are unable to "condone" it on moral and spiritual grounds.

    And furthermore, Jesus said to every person He ever dealt with to "GO AND SIN NO MORE!" And the bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin, so where do you get off implying that Jesus was tolerant of any sin, much less homosexuality? It is another example of dishonestly or again, your spiritual ignorance in your describing what Jesus stands for and who He is as Messiah.

    So in conclusion SP, for you to hold up an unchristian pastor who doesn't even follow the holy book of the God which he claims to follow, as an example of what true bible believing pastors "should be", That is the epitome of dishonesty, or ignorance. Which was the point I tried to make on the other thread but didn't accomplish as I was rushed at the moment. I apologize for excluding the option of claiming ignorance in my original post.

    But I'm glad I got this opportunity to clarify my position for you now in a more complete manner. So I wont be retracting my statement of your dishonesty. All I needed to do was clarify what I meant to say originally because your lack of spiritual integrity and your spiritual dishonesty on multiple levels remain, as I have clearly shown here. Unless you respond by admitting you wrote the premise of this thread in spiritual ignorance. In that case, you would be correct and I was wrong to mistake your ignorance for dishonesty, and I will immediately and profusely apologize for calling you dishonest. The choice is yours SP, It's one or the other. And I remain at your service.
    Last edited by Archangel; 11-11-2008 at 04:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    I'm just amazed shadow that you still care that Arch calls you all kinds of names.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  5. #5
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    I'm just amazed shadow that you still care that Arch calls you all kinds of names.
    SP asked me to, and I quote: Please defend your claims Archie, or retract them. And I defended them. How is proving my assertion so clearly and completely that a second grader can understand, a bad thing? Oh, and I didn't call her all kinds of names, just that the premise of that thread is spiritually dishonest, and I have even adjusted my critique to allow for it being based on spiritual ignorance rather than dishonesty. How much more gracious can a guy be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Sorry, I can't retract it even though you were being either your spiritually ignorant or spiritually dishonest anti-christian self, so I'll defend it until we figure this out, ok? You were either being spiritually dishonest or spiritually ignorant by claiming, and I quote you: I'm glad to see that at least some pastors in this world have integrity and are not bigoted and want all citizens to have the same rights. Your dishonesty lies in claiming that pastors who support homosexuality have (religious) integrity when what they believe and practice goes against everything their own bible says about what homosexuality stands for in Gods sight.

    And then to hold them up as examples in which to condemn churches/pastors which do hold to Gods word regarding this issue, that too appears very dishonest of you, unless you're claiming ignorance. Are you ignorant or dishonest SP? If you're admitting to spiritual ignorance, then I guess I will retract calling you dishonest, do I retract it? You tell me.

    You also said this, which not only showed a lack of spiritual integrity but was totally dishonest, or again, just ignorant. and I quote you once again: but I wish there were more who were not bigoted. The others give Christianity a bad name and cause people to associate Jesus and the church with intolerance and removal of equal rights.

    To call the religious Right bigoted is also dishonest or spiritually ignorant because we aren't motivated by any bigotry at all, nor do we hold any personal animosity toward homosexuals. Our position is based on honoring what God say's about this practice being unnatural and an abomination before Him, in His word, so we are unable to "condone" it on moral and spiritual grounds.

    And furthermore, Jesus said to every person He ever dealt with to "GO AND SIN NO MORE!" And the bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin, so where do you get off implying that Jesus was tolerant of any sin, much less homosexuality? It is another example of dishonestly or again, your spiritual ignorance in your describing what Jesus stands for and who He is as Messiah.

    So in conclusion SP, for you to hold up an unchristian pastor who doesn't even follow the holy book of the God which he claims to follow, as an example of what true bible believing pastors "should be", That is the epitome of dishonesty, or ignorance. Which was the point I tried to make on the other thread but didn't accomplish as I was rushed at the moment. I apologize for excluding the option of claiming ignorance in my original post.

    But I'm glad I got this opportunity to clarify my position for you now in a more complete manner. So I wont be retracting my statement of your dishonesty. All I needed to do was clarify what I meant to say originally because your lack of spiritual integrity and your spiritual dishonesty on multiple levels remain, as I have clearly shown here. Unless you respond by admitting you wrote the premise of this thread in spiritual ignorance. In that case, you would be correct and I was wrong to mistake your ignorance for dishonesty, and I will immediately and profusely apologize for calling you dishonest. The choice is yours SP, It's one or the other. And I remain at your service.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    You didn't demonstrate anything. You just insisted, effectively, that your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one and that sola scriptura is the only valid Biblical doctrine. You then used this to justify bigotry and discrimination, all the while claiming it wasn't bigotry because it had Biblical support. I'm sure the slave owners and the KKK thought exactly the same thing in the 18 and 1960s respectively.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  7. #7
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    You didn't demonstrate anything. You just insisted, effectively, that your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one and that sola scriptura is the only valid Biblical doctrine. You then used this to justify bigotry and discrimination, all the while claiming it wasn't bigotry because it had Biblical support. I'm sure the slave owners and the KKK thought exactly the same thing in the 18 and 1960s respectively.
    There you go again comparing the black slavery plight with the homosexual agenda which is seeking special rights Jo. And in addition to that, you are referring to what the bible say's about slave ownership as if God encouraged it rather than understanding that God laid down rules for the treatment of servants because it was the custom of the day and existed in that time period.

    It is not as if the Bible ever encourages slavery. You will not find a single
    passage of scripture which in any way whatsoever encourages any follower
    of God to own slaves. However, in the Old Testament, God did allow for
    slavery. God allowed a number of practices under the Old Covenant which
    he nevertheless did not want his people to do. God made concessions under
    the Old testament for divorce, although he never wanted divorce to happen.
    "Moses (and presumably, therefore God) permitted you to divorce because
    your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
    (Matthew 19:8)

    I would assume God's attitude toward slavery in the Old
    Testament would fall under the same category. Slavery was a fact of life
    in the ancient world. Victory in battle produced slaves. Period.
    Therefore, for his own reasons, God chose to regulate the cruelty of
    slavery rather than to ban it outright for the Jews under the Law of
    Moses. He commanded that slaves be set free automatically after a certain
    amount of time. He forbade excessive cruelty to slaves. He commanded that
    they be allowed a certain level of access to the ceremonies of Judaism and
    so forth. See Deuteronomy 23:15, Leviticus 25:14 as examples.

    But in your mind, and due to your ignorance of what the bible truly means, more than what you think it say's, you, like SP and the southern slave owners of the 18th and 19th century misinterpret it to serve your purpose. The slave owners defense for owning human beings was justified just because the bible talks about the issue with no regard of what it actually say's on the subject.

    And here you are accusing my interpretation of being bigoted just because it doesn't fit with your preferred interpretation of very clearly written passages regarding the issue of homosexuality. So like Shadow, either you're being dishonest in your accusations that it is me who is bigoted, or you too are speaking from spiritual ignorance, because you are no different than the slave owners from America's past who corrupted what the bible REALLY say's in order to justify your perverse interpretation. And also like those slave owners, you condemn anyone who argues against your warped interpretation.

    And as evidence of how clear and concise these passages are which you so conveniently corrupt in your misinterpretations, I repost them as evidence that I'm not just insisting anything, but the bible is so clear that only anyone interested in interpreting the plain language cannot help but understand that God is condemning homosexuality as a practice. So as I said, the true christians are not motivated by bigotry at all, but we are not so bold as so called christians like you who pervert the bible in order to justify your own secular humanist sensibilities. Read it and weep Jo, cuz you couldn't be more wrong if you set out to be.

    Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

    1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

    1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

    I know because of your denial you will come back and say the translation is lost from the original language to english, but this many times? And phrased this many different ways? Only someone who is very dishonest or completely ignorant could make such a claim Jo. So which is it? Are you also being dishonest? Or are you just completely ignorant regarding the truth of what the bible say's regarding homosexuality and also slavery, for that matter?
    https://www.evidenceforchristianity....k=view&id=4264

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    I find it amusing that opposing the Iraq war is considered a sign of a "liberal" church. Pretty much every major denomination, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Dubya's own United Methodists opposed the Iraq war. It's not about liberal or conservative, it's about moral and immoral. Ditto the death penalty.
    It's not "peace" to idly watch your nation suffer and die while you continue the negotiations that are obviously having no effect.
    My imaginary friend left me. He said his other friends didn't believe in me.

    Spending our way out of the recession is like drinking our way out of alcoholism.

    "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethmi View Post
    It's not "peace" to idly watch your nation suffer and die while you continue the negotiations that are obviously having no effect.
    That's far more peaceful than invading a sovereign country on false pretences and then irradiating the whole place using bombs that have been internationally condemned.

  10. #10
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    That's far more peaceful than invading a sovereign country on false pretences and then irradiating the whole place using bombs that have been internationally condemned.
    Interesting. Got a link that accuses us of that? Because I just googled USA irradiating Iraq using bombs that have been internationally condemned. and came up with nothing that accuses us of that. You realize don't you that you're implying we nuked Iraq?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    That's far more peaceful than invading a sovereign country on false pretences and then irradiating the whole place using bombs that have been internationally condemned.
    I think you're a little mixed up DU isn't radioactive, but it is highly toxic, which is probably what you're thinking of.

    @ Ethmi, I don't see how your opinion is relevant to the point being made. The vast majority of Christians think war, particularly the war in Iraq, is wrong. Even the principles of Just War (already overly permissive in themselves) don't condone the invasion. The vast majority of Churches in the US opposed the war, and your whining will not change that.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    I think you're a little mixed up DU isn't radioactive, but it is highly toxic, which is probably what you're thinking of.
    You think DU is not radioactive?

    Depleted uranium
    The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
    The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
    DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
    The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.
    Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.
    You must be getting your info from the US government. It gives around 60% of the radioactive dose of the purified stuff. That's a little more than background radiation.

    Okay, if you can keep the stuff out of your body then the damage it is likely to cause is not so great, but the biggest problem with the use of DU in weapons is that it is introduced into the environment as radioactive dust in the atmosphere, which can easily be breathed in or contaminate the water table. The problem is not that people are being poisoned by the stuff, the problem is the significant increase in cancer cases. And that goes for US soldiers too.

    @ Archie - Have you never heard of the Geneva Conventions? Look them up. And pay particular attention to 'Harmful Material Left on the Battlefield' and 'Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects'.

  13. #13
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    That's far more peaceful than invading a sovereign country on false pretences and then irradiating the whole place using bombs that have been internationally condemned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Interesting. Got a link that accuses us of that? Because I just googled USA irradiating Iraq using bombs that have been internationally condemned. and came up with nothing that accuses us of that. You realize don't you that you're implying we nuked Iraq?
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    You think DU is not radioactive?

    You must be getting your info from the US government. It gives around 60% of the radioactive dose of the purified stuff. That's a little more than background radiation.

    Okay, if you can keep the stuff out of your body then the damage it is likely to cause is not so great, but the biggest problem with the use of DU in weapons is that it is introduced into the environment as radioactive dust in the atmosphere, which can easily be breathed in or contaminate the water table. The problem is not that people are being poisoned by the stuff, the problem is the significant increase in cancer cases. And that goes for US soldiers too.

    @ Archie - Have you never heard of the Geneva Conventions? Look them up. And pay particular attention to 'Harmful Material Left on the Battlefield' and 'Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects'.
    I have absolutely no qualms with your info at all. And I agree that depleted Uranium is harmful to humans. What I objected to, and still do, is the inaccuracy of your claim that we have, or are irradiating the whole place using bombs. If we were, we would in fact be nuking Iraq with nuclear weapons and we both know that isn't happening. Depleted Uranium shells which are primarily used against tanks and artillery units on the battlefield are very limited in exposing civilians to radioactive material.

    It's also used as shielding due to its density. And that density is also why it makes effective projectiles for piercing through hardened targets. All of this is irrelevant justification though if these projectiles were being used against civilian populations. But they aren't used that way at all. Because the military is aware of the dangers you point out, and these projectiles are extremely expensive to manufacture. So they use the proper weapon for the threat they face. This link explains the specific ammunition questions regarding this issue.
    Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here is what International law is currently debating regarding the legal status from the same link. Since the USA isn't the only Country with DU weapons, I believe an international consensus will be easier said than done.

    Legal status in weapons
    In 1996 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion on the "legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons".[28] This made it clear, in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56, that international law on poisonous weapons, – the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 – did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate. This ICJ opinion was about nuclear weapons, but the sentence "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate," also removes depleted uranium weaponry from coverage by the same treaties as their primary use is not to poison or asphyxiate, but to destroy materiel and kill soldiers through kinetic energy.
    The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission,[29] passed two motions[30] — the first in 1996[31] and the second in 1997.[32] They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. The committee authorized a working paper, in the context of human rights and humanitarian norms, of the weapons. The requested UN working paper was delivered in 2002[33] by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Genocide Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I, the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yeung Sik Yuen writes in Paragraph 133 under the title "Legal compliance of weapons containing DU as a new weapon":

    Annex II to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 (which became operative on 8 February 1997) classifies DU as a category II nuclear material. Storage and transport rules are set down for that category which indicates that DU is considered sufficiently "hot" and dangerous to warrant these protections. But since weapons containing DU are relatively new weapons no treaty exists yet to regulate, limit or prohibit its use. The legality or illegality of DU weapons must therefore be tested by recourse to the general rules governing the use of weapons under humanitarian and human rights law which have already been analysed in Part I of this paper, and more particularly at paragraph 35 which states that parties to Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have an obligation to ascertain that new weapons do not violate the laws and customs of war or any other international law. As mentioned, the International Court of Justice considers this rule binding customary humanitarian law.

    In 2001, Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime.[34] Louise Arbour, Del Ponte's predecessor as chief prosecutor, had created a small, internal committee, made up of staff lawyers, to assess the allegation. Their findings, that were accepted and endorsed by Del Ponte,[35] concluded that:

    is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.[36]


    I haven't done a search on this question, but it would be interesting to look to see if there has been a statistical increase in cancers within the Iraqi civilian population. That would go a long way in proving that these weapons have had a deleterious effect on the country.

    Countries with stockpiles of DU weapons are:

    United States DOE 480,000 2002
    Russia FAEA 460,000 1996
    France Areva NC 190,000 2001

    United Kingdom BNFL 30,000 2001
    Germany
    Netherlands

    United Kingdom URENCO 16,000 1999

    Japan JNFL 10,000 2001

    China CNNC 2,000 2000

    South Korea KAERI 200 2002

    South Africa NECSA 73 2001
    TOTAL 1,188,273 2002

    I must add just to point out that anyone who believes the numbers China gives is not only delusional, but very naive.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    I am prepared to accept that the level of background radiation in Iraq has not increased to any great extent. I realise that if a lump of DU were buried several feet underground (assuming not in the water table) it would not significantly irradiate those living above it. But, as I said, the DU from the bombs and shells used there is sitting on the surface in the form of dust, which will just get blown around and breathed in by the civilian population.

    As for cancer cases, here is one article detailing the increase in numbers. I realise that you won't trust the word Socialist in the title, so here is another from closer to home. The bit near the bottom on Birth defects is most relevant. The part entitled THE STUDIES gives information on the effects to your own troops. And finally, this report says, "Cancer rate in Iraq has increased tenfold, and the number of birth defects has multiplied fivefold times since the 1991 war."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,715
    Archie -

    Not agreeing with your interpretation of the Bible does not make one a liar. You have not proven how ShadowPikachu was difhonest. Your ego is seriously over-inflated and maybe you really ought to look up the meanings of words before you use them.
    “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

    "Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •