If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Sizewell B nuclear station... seized.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Luckily, it was only GreenPeace that broke into the nuclear facility yesterday. What if it had been al Qaeda?
0
Comments
It's actually quite difficult to create a meltdown, the so called China Syndrome, and impossible to create an atomic explosion because there's simply insufficient critical mass...
Paranoia is not an option.
So it wouldn't work.
The US reactor designs are dodgy (viz. Three Mile Island) and the French, due to nationalistic pride, designed their own that are unique in the world.
So it probably wouldn't work over in the UK.
Your point?
(I'm not fun to fight with? Why? Because I keep winning and making you distract from the point?
Oh and that was interesting.
Policy issues and the international community are my main passions.
Clandestine, tsk tsk letting your ego out a bit aren't you. Your mind seems to be a bit one way. I see no balance or objectivity in your replies or responses. There are always two sides to any story or debate, and the truth usually lies in the middle. Your responses ARE always one sided at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. I don't really care for any person that is to LEFT or to RIGHT or to RELIGIOUS or to anything. Which is probably why I don't like your persona on this site. I will just ignore any response you post in the future on any subject, so I can retain my objectivity in the debate.
Often my friend, one must adopt a position diametrically opposed to the curent trend in order to do just as you say, and return some balance to the debate.
I merely hold up the glaring inconsistencies of the rhetoric being spewed out by our respective political establishments in hopes of inspiring likeminded questioning, something there is precious little of in the US even if it is growing (and for that I would be pleased) in the UK.
I am not the enemy here, I would advise you to come to grips with that. We all have far more powerful and well equipped leaders who are plunging us into further global chaos and instability to be focussing upon. Sorry if you dont like my fiery approach, but often it takes a bit of passion and conviction to turn the tide of public thinking.
Clandestine, I would agree with some of that but (going back to our debate on the other board), you didn't really answer any of my points with any factual evidence yet seem to consider what is, after all only an opinion of yours, as the truth.
I am happy to have you change my opinion on things but what you say just isn't convincing. Please produce some sort of evidence to support your theories (perhaps there is a credible web site somewhere I can look at?) and I'll gladly stand at your side. However, just because there are "glaring inconsistencies " doesn't mean that Bush has Bin Laden in his pocket etc etc
Ooops! I'm going off topic now ... I'll shut up.
To be entirely fair, I haven't seen much evidence cited by either side. While I do not agree with Clandestine's overt paranoia, at least I have some degree of trust in his statements.
If we can all support things with references, websites, or just not make daft statements, it will be a smoother debate, folks.
Apart from that, if people choose to lambast me for opposing what I see as wanton abuse of power then fine by me. Such people routinely just allow our leaders to do as they please thinking that they wouldnt possibly do anything bad to their own citizens. Sadly history is on my side on that score and anyone who cares to take that as a cue to investigate for themselves can do their own google searches for doumented references to underhanded government activities, lies, and public deception.
Get into the political arena and youll soon learn for yourself how corrupt and self serving it all is.
I'm sorry that you think I am lambasting you. I do not mean to appear confrontational or disrespectful. I am merely commenting that I find your opinions rather "wild".
I'm not sure what the press in the US is like but I'm sure if what you have to say is of a serious conjecture, the British press, who often tend to be anti-government and always out for a good story based on their almost complete freedom in reporting, would be running your thread of thinking like wildfire on a daily basis!
But it doesn't.
Would they not, Teagan, equally run the stories of how we know Iraq and the WTC attacks are linked?
Yes, our press are critical of our government, but they would run that story for ever. Look at coverage of the Falklands conflict.
Going by what the press release is hardly the best way to settle an argument, is it?
No, but it would be an indication. If you read the The Sun, Mirror (and the ilk), etc then you have a point but there are still a few papers out there who still produce good investigative journalism. And what about impartial news agencies like Reuters etc? You cannot discount newspapers completely.
I would disagree with your description of Reuters as "impartial", but agree that you cannot discount papers completely. However, it would not be wise to be completely without cynicism when dealing with a British press, tabloid or no.
http://www.newint.org/issue256/facts.htm
On what grounds?
I agree. Of course I don't believe everything in the papers or completely trust their content. But if someone puts posts up on this board (in general - I'm not being specific about anyone in particular) but shows no evidence of what they are insisting or implying is fact, are they any better than the newspapers? I don't think so.
Oh, I know that there are huge news agencies out there with perhaps their own agendas but does that make them ALL bad - and owned by people who would happily kill over 3000 people to keep Bush in power?
As I posted above, you might have a look at the link concerning the nature of the modern media.
What I do question is the involvement of some level of our government to have been involved, not necessarily the administration (although I suspect they might have known it was to happen and when). I dont find it too hard to believe that the CIA or NSA (more than likely the latter since it answers to the president not the State Dept.) with their elaborate installations, hyper secrecy under "National Security" interests and their wealth of the finest strategic minds in the country were more likely behind it than a group of fugitive nutcases previously living in caves in Afghanistan.
Here is a nice trove of links to reports that put the whole cover story of the 9/11 attack and subsequent events in question. A good place to begin, but by no means the only reports out there. Heck Id need an entire page to put all the links ive researched in the past year or so...
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/#5b
You didn't say so - but what I said was if your thoughts about CIA sanctioning the 9/11 attacks and having Bin Laden on their payroll, why had no major newspapers picked up and made a fuss of the story? Then people started saying we can't trust the papers or they're in the hands of huge media moguls etc etc which implied that perhaps they may be squashing the story etc etc
Thanks for the links, by the way. Looks like I have some hefty reading to do!
It is owned by someone with their own agenda. While human subjectivity exists (and it always will, despite what existentialists argue), then nothing is impartial.
Media creates a landscape; it's a cultural study in its own right.
Here's a link about OBL's relation to the CIA. Im sure you can easily do searches for more...
http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm