nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-14-08 04:04
Hello folks,
Senator McCain told an audience during a campaign speach that he was in favor of building 45 new reactors over the next thirty years.
Great idea but I remember what was said when the first reactors were being built. Power companies bragged that nuclear energy was so cheap it would be impossible to meter the use. What happened to that?
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Ro Lefwyn (---.lnngmi.dedicated.static.tds.net)
Date: 07-14-08 11:48
Anything that wouldn't line pockets is likely to go over like a lead balloon at a corporate and govermental level....
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-14-08 17:08
Ro,
You are so cynical! Lining one's pockets is NOT a sin. Profit is a great motivator. Look at Ford, General Electric, Boeing aircraft,or microsoft. Are they an evil empire? Most of the greatest advances in history were made possible by profits, either real or imagined. The westward expansion of this country was accelerated by the discovery of gold in California. Seward's folly became a cash cow with the gold rush in Alaska at the turn of the twentieth century. Also, remember the first commercial oil well was in Pennsylvania.
All government does is govern. That is its only role in life. They don't make anything, find anything, distribute anything, or create anything. They can tax and regulate. That's about it. Ronald Reagan was right when he said 'the government isn't the solution, it is the problem.'
Loosen up, Ro! Capitalists are people too.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Wonky (192.250.49.---)
Date: 07-14-08 21:01
Glen
You are correct. Thing is nucular (W pronounciation) probably just was not profitable enough.
Only once oil gets to expensive to produce will we start seeing more fuel switching.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Beautiful Loser (---.dllstx.fios.verizon.net)
Date: 07-15-08 08:50
It's not the money [profits] which is evil, it's what you do with it that can be.
JMHO
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: N D (---.static.dsl.dodo.com.au)
Date: 07-16-08 00:36
I see three problems here if the USA wants to go Nukular in a big way.
One is that there's not all that much uranium out there - 85 years at current usage before we see "Peak Uranium" reached, when it becomes uneconomical (better to build solar panels).
Secondly, where are you gonna dump the waste?
Thirdly, of the major producers of U, who are friends of the USA? If it wasn't for Canada and Australia holding nearly half the world supply, you'd probably need to invade someone like with oil.
Renewable energy sources are just not on our maps are they? Sad really. Australia has quite a lot of sun ... and they want to build nuclear here. :(
I'm now a big fan of embracing climate change. Capitalism will kill the world - Glen's high hopes only work when the bad things become more expensive than the good things - and when we stop voting in politicians who have oil companies.
Capitalism is like communism - a nice idea in theory with a few big flaws.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: J G (---.nrflva.east.verizon.net)
Date: 07-16-08 03:25
Capitalism is economic theory, not a political model... Stop talking out of your arse already.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: J G (---.nrflva.east.verizon.net)
Date: 07-16-08 03:27
That was a joke by the way... I figured you'd need some explanation, Nick. lol
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Carl Purdon (---.static.networktel.net)
Date: 07-16-08 08:38
The US has never invaded another country and taken their oil, ND.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.or.comcast.net)
Date: 07-16-08 21:44
Are you saying the Senator wants to build 45 major terrorist targets?
Humans haven't figured out safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste, nor do they know how to fully protect a reactor from terrorism, especially domestic terrorism.
Nuclear power has some good aspects, but I think the downsides outweigh them. Put the money into solar and wind energy. It's safer and sun and wind are freely available.
--- Mya Bell
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Wonky (192.250.49.---)
Date: 07-16-08 23:59
Put the money into solar and wind energy. It's safer and sun and wind are freely available.
In the future, the colder countries will attack the warm ones to get the sunlight.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-17-08 01:02
Mya,
Forty five terrorist targets? Wait a minute, let me get the phone.
"Hello, Oakridge Police department? Yes, well, I've got this friend, Mya, who says anyone building nuclear material is subject to terrorist attacks. Well, yes, I know your city is nicknamed 'the Atomic City' and all that, but what about Mya's warning? She's full of what? No, I think she's serious. She doesn't joke about these things, you know. I know you have been manufacturing atomic energy products since world war two. I know you manufactured the enriched uranium for the first two atomic bombs. Never had a problem? What's that? Oh, knock on wood. Well, thanks for the reassurance. Better living through science...I agree with that very much. Thankyou. Goodbye."
Do you have any documentable incidents of terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors? How about hydroelectric dams?
Glen T. Brock :)
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 16:02
Glen, my comment about terrorist attacks was partly serious, partly facetious. Do you have any documented incidents of planes being used to decimat highrises before 9/11?
To reiterate, my main gripes with nuclear power are:
1) We have not developed safe, long-term solutions for disposing of nuclear waste.
2) Humans are not responsible enough (nor aware enough of the dangers of nuclear contamination) to run nuclear power reactors safely over the long term. Corporate corner-cutting always wins out over public safety.
3) Putting research and development funds into nuclear reactors reduces investment in and development of safer forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Wind and solar aren't 100% environmentally friendly either, but they are thousands of times safer than nuclear reactors.
--- Mya Bell
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: jayce (---.mob.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-17-08 16:31
In the future, the colder countries will attack the warm ones to get the sunlight.
As global warming progresses, there will be no colder countries.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.or.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 16:37
July 17, 2008: It has been reported that seventy-four kilograms of radioactive liquid uranium from the nuclear reactor at Areva leaked into local water supplies. Drinking water has been lost, water sports have been banned, crops cannot be irrigated along with other restrictions around the two rivers that were contaminated.
The leak prompted testing of four areas. The testers found abnormally high levels of uranium that could not have been caused by this leak alone.
A study in 1998 estimated that up to 900 kg of uranium (about 4,000 gallons) had leaked into underground water supplies from a military storage site about a mile from the reactor.
This indicates that prior contamination has been quietly happening without public awareness, possibly from the storage facility that operated from 1964 to 1976 and now from the reactor facility, as well.
July 13, 2008:
Sandside beach, west of the decommissioned Dounreay reactor has been contaminated with potentially lethal radioactive fuel particles. About 5,000 particles have been accidentally discharged from the reacotr's storage shafts and are being washed ashore at popular tourist beaches. it takes only about 8 particles to pose a significant health risk to bathers and vacationers.
June 223, 2008:
There was a recent leak in the cooling system of the Krsko nuclear power plant, setting off a Europe-wide alert until the valve could be repaired.
July 8, 2008:
There are reports that radioactive waste has been leaking for twenty years from a German underground waste facility southwest of Berlin. The leaks were only officially admitted as of June 16th, until then the public was not informed, even though there has been knowledge of the leaks since 1988.
The waste is stored in an old salt mine and has mixed with the sale, creating about 80,000 liters of radiactove salt solution eight times higher than the radiactivity limit. About 30 liters of radioactive brine are leaking daily despite efforts to push it deeper into the ground. Some say the salt may cause undesirable chemical reactions when mixed with radioactive waste.
Also, in Germany, one of the nuclear waste sitess, holding materials that will be radioactive for centuries, is considered only "temporary" until they figure out a long-term solution to storing the waste and whether the existing site is "suitable."
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.or.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 16:56
June 25, 2003:
UCS opposed the restart of the Ohio nuclear power plant until the criminal investigation into a near-accident was concluded. The nuclear power company knowingly gave false reports on the condition of pressure vessels and associated piping systems to hide the fact that there were problems. There were also said to have been false statements about required inspections to the reactor vessel head.
A hole more than six inches deep was found in the lid of the reactor in 2002 and a thin layer of stainless steel was found to be bulging from the pressure, barely containing a possible catastrophic release of radioactive material. The damage had apparently been present since 1996 and false statements about required inspections to the reactor vessel head had been given.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 17:05
On November 1, 2007:
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that David Geisen had been convicted of concealing problems at the Ohio nuclear power facility and making false statements regarding safety measures.
April 27, 2006:
Workers were exposed to radiation at the Palisades, Michigan nuclear power facility when an underwater storage container was mishandled. It was the second reported incident in one month.
December 12, 2007:
Michigan groundwater samples around the Palisades nuclear facility revealed radioactive contamination with radioactive tritium, a material that can cause cancer. Officials at the plant claimed they were under no obligation to report the leakage because it wasn't leaking into a well that provided drinking water.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 17:09
"Prior to Chernobyl, thyroid cancer in children was practically nonexistent. Today we see dozens and dozens of cases a year in the regions contaminated by the disaster, and the incidence continues to rise," --- Scott Davis, Epidemiologist
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-17-08 19:05
It's a horror story. But what do we do? Go back to living without electricity? I doubt the majority would be in favour of that. They'd say everything has a trade off, and the dangers of nuclear power are more acceptable than grovelling around in the dark. With, I might add, billions more people on the planet than in the pre electrical days. Just imagine. No refrigeration, no heating at the flick of a switch, no stable lights, no radio, no television, no Internet. Imagine a power outage that never ends. Pretty grim. I guess everything comes at a price.
P.S. As for solar power, it's just not practical, economical or reliable on a widespread basis.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-17-08 20:43
Mya,
Thomas Edison railed at Westinghouse for it's proposed use of alternating current to transmit electricity. He said it was dangerous. He said it would kill people by electrocution. Guess what? He was right. You can list the names of people killed by electrocution every day for decades and decades and decades... It doesn't change a damned thing. Electricity isn't safe but it's safer than gas. Gas isn't safe but it's safer than whale oil. How protected do you want to be? Outside Chernybol, which was a catastrophic event, how many civilian deaths have been attributed to commercial nuclear energy? Not many if any.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-17-08 21:28
Solar power is quite practical. I saw a guy running his entire trailer on two panels. He didn't need a lot of power, but the point is that two panels is very little, took up very little space and he was completely self-sufficient out in the woods.
I know people whose hot water tanks are solar powered and the panels aren't that big, a small niche on the roof.
Solar power has come a long way.
One days when there isn't a lot of sun, there's often a lot of wind. Wind and solar together make a great combination.
It's not a good long-term solution to put all our eggs into the nuclear power basket. We are LESS dependent if we diversify our power sources rather than if we lump them into a few that are run by megacorporations. The horror stories above are just a small example of how profit always comes first and safety and health always come second when we put too much trust in conglomerates.
The point is to diversify and to put more research dollars into renewable sources.
There was a time when everyone said computers would NEVER be small enough, powerful enough, or graphics-capabale enough to be useful or to be available to general consumers. They were short-sighted and completely wrong. With effort, renewable resource technology will improve. it will become smaller, cheaper, and more powerful, just as computers did, but not if we target our efforts elsewhere.
--- Mya Bell
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-18-08 01:40
Mya,
Who said anything about depending solely on Nuclear energy? I didn't. Senator McCain certainly didn't either. He said he would work for legislation to build 45 new reactors. He said nothing about slamming the door on all other forms of alternative energy.
For that matter there's nothing inherintly wrong with oil, gas or coal either. What IS inherintly wrong is allowing our political enemies to get a corner on the market to extort us into bankruptcy.
While we shoulding exclude any form of energy we have to have good common sense about its uses too. Solar energy might work well for an individual living in the mountains but it doesn't work too well in New York City. For the big cities you need a lot more energy. If the auto industry had gone into high gear when we had the first fuel shortage scare in 1973 we might have an affordable alternative to oil by now.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Ro Lefwyn (---.lnngmi.dedicated.static.tds.net)
Date: 07-18-08 07:22
We aren't responsible enough to play with atomic energy on such a large scale. We aren't responsible with the energy resources we use now, let alone something that could potentially (and nearly has) burn down into the core of the erath.
There's nothing wrong with oil save for that it won't last forever at the rate we are pumping from earth. Coal is very polluting,and we are irresponsible on how we take it from the ground, contaiminating the ground water and how much more crap do we want to pump into the environment?
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-18-08 14:32
"Solar energy might work well for an individual living in the mountains but it doesn't work too well in New York City. For the big cities you need a lot more energy."
Amen to that. Solar energy is to nuclear power, what the horse and buggy is to an aeroplane.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-18-08 16:27
Ro,
Not responsible enough? Coming from the 'duck and cover' era that's kind of difficult for me to accept. We haven't blown ourselves to atoms in the sixty plus years since Hiroshima. We've had nuclear submrines since 1957 without a single nuclear incident (unlike our soviet competitors). Nuclear power is safe when handled with the respect modern engineers give it. As for the waste material recycle. Actually, the most damaging waste a reactor generates is heat.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Mya Bell (---.hsd1.or.comcast.net)
Date: 07-18-08 17:25
I don't understand why people think everything has to come from the same source.
Solar power would work for NYC just as well as for the guy out in the woods.
The technology has come a long way and will go further. Solar panels used to be big, expensive, and inefficient. People didn't want them on their roofs because they were ugly.
Not true anymore. Now they have panels that are flexible, like towels, you can roll them up, put them in a backpack and power your iPod off of them.
They have small panels that will charge a battery/capacitor for six hours use for any small appliance, like a laptop.
They have roof panels that ARE solar panels. No need to mount an ugly panel on your roof any more, the roof itself is a solar collector. Imagine if every roof were built with these components rather than with duroid? It would reduce every household's toll on the grid by 60%---a huge savings.
Diversify. Combine solar and wind with existing sources. If more people bought these solutions, the price would drop significantly. Doesn't matter whether it's big cities or small ones, reducing draw from the grid, even by only 30% would significantly reduce our dependency on oil and other nonrenewable resources. It would be enough to keep us going for many extra centuries.
--- Mya Bell
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-18-08 19:52
Mya,
If this is the case then why don't large cities have solar energy? Nissan motor corporation advertised they had a manufacturing plant that was powered by methane gas generated from a land fill. How come you don't see other manufacturers using solar cells to generate the power to manufacture their product?
Could it be because this is all theoretical?
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: jayce (---.mob.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-18-08 20:01
We've had nuclear submrines since 1957 without a single nuclear incident ...
As usual, Glenn, your rhetoric is not supported by the facts. This site, http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html , may tell you more than you want to know.
Cheers.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-18-08 21:10
Jayce,
Hyman Rickover's nuclear fleet has had no nuclear incident since 1957. Your GAP posts didn't show anything about American submarines and concentrated on radiation leaks at Los Alamos or other landlocked bases. I read Tom Clancy's excellent factual book SUBMARINE. Although the Tresher was a nuclear submarine that sank it has not been ascertained that the sinking was due to a nuclear malfunction.
Some, if not all, of the material I saw on the GAP site are subject to debate. Nuclear accidents in the past that have been subject to lurid depictions in men's magazines are almost always from steam explosions or unsubstantiated claims of gross radiation exposure. Three Mile Island was evacuated as a safety measure. The radiation that was released, although significant, was not life threatening. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was a major incident, with lasting consequences.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: N D (---.static.dsl.dodo.com.au)
Date: 07-18-08 21:17
Capitalism is economic theory, not a political model... Stop talking out of your arse already.
Wiki says:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.
I was comparing two economic models. If we are being anal I probably should have used the broader term, Socialism - but I like to use the Commie word because you Americans are still terrified of it with those fifty years of propaganda.
The US has never invaded another country and taken their oil, ND.
I said:
...you'd probably need to invade someone like with oil.
I didn't say: take, you did. I I were a lawyer, performing a cross-examination someone would have shouted, "Objection!" by now, because of "leading". Led you were, Sorry! Even Americans think everyone thinks they are stealing oil. They are merely getting rid of the guy who didn't want to sell it to them. Not much of a difference, but the DEVIL is in the details, eh? Heh heh heh.
Lastly, Glen - may your grandchildren grow up next to one of these 42 ultra-safe reactors. We might get the first three armed president, President Glen T. Brock Jr, The world needs more arms.
BTW - Australia has only one nuclear reactor (not for generating electricity, but for isotopes) and guess who got caught taking photos of it? An Islamic fellow...
...we find that catching terrorists before they commit crimes is good.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Beautiful Loser (---.dllstx.fios.verizon.net)
Date: 07-19-08 11:42
Deregulation?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5886215.html
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-19-08 13:37
"...we find that catching terrorists before they commit crimes is good."
And may you always be this fortunate. Muslims were also plotting to poison one of your reservoirs, but alert security forces stopped them. All Western nations are on full red alert. Their Muslim communities under rigid surveillance. It's the only way to prevent another disaster like 9/11. However, there are those who term this "racial profiling" and claim it violates the rights of Muslims. I, for one, would like to see Muslims repatriated back to their own countries. It would save the West a helluva lot of expense and anxiety. Remember, they only have to be lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: jayce (---.mob.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-19-08 14:47
Glenn:
Your GAP posts didn't show anything about American submarines
Scroll down, eagle eye. There's about a dozen. (But if your definition of a "nuclear incident" is something comparable to Chernobyl, you'll discount all of them.)
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: N D (---.static.dsl.dodo.com.au)
Date: 07-19-08 20:39
I, for one, would like to see Muslims repatriated back to their own countries. It would save the West a helluva lot of expense and anxiety. Remember, they only have to be lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.
I would like all the British Colonialists repatriated too. They caused a Genocide here in Australia.
Oh wait a minute, the British people were actually born here. That makes them Australians. Oh - pesky Human Rights.
Pesky "Freedom" - and choosing whatever religion your heart desires? We shouldn't allow that. Only the religions that white people follow should be legal.
Wow - there's a fine line between Fascism, Communism and Right Wing Fanatics. Heh eh heh.
Seriously now - I think Muslim communities should police their own people. It'd be better for them in the long run. In the end it's gonna become us vs them.
The best way to recruit more terrorists is to rule with an iron (white) fist.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-19-08 21:07
Nick
Patience has run out for Islamics, who have no wish to assimilate, commit crimes, and who form language/religious ghettos in the West. Switzerland is leading the way with a sensible new law. If an immigrant commits a crime, then his whole fricken family gets shipped back to Iran, or wherever the hell they came from. That might encourage Muslims to police the actions of their own kind, a little more diligently. I mean it's one thing fending off a rebel group within one's country that has a historical, geographical or cultural right to be there. I'm thinking now of terror groups like the IRA. But to import one, with no such background, and who fits in about as well as a fart in a crowded elevator. Well I ask you? Enough is enough.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Glen T. Brock (---.asm.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-19-08 22:12
Jayce,
Let me get this straight. Are you contending that all accidents that happen to nuclear submarines are nuclear accidents? I scrolled. I read. The most notorius case was the Thresher, which imploded. Nobody ever ascertained that implosion was the result of a reactor accident. Another incident involved a nuclear sub that sustained damage from an open hatch! I looked at some of Mr. Luttins' other posts, specifically, the one about the first war America ever lost (the war of 1812). Mr. Luttins contends the war of 1812 was an attempt to invade Canada by the US. That's a bit of a streatch. Impressing American sailors into the British navy had something to do with that, I think. If he's your best source you are in trouble.
Glen T. Brock
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-19-08 22:40
"Impressing American sailors into the British navy had something to do with that, I think."
The British didn't recognise American Citizenship for British born sailors. However, if they could prove they had been born in America, or were of a different nationality, they did have the right to challenge impressment, and frequently did, and won, in the courts.
Another reason for the War of 1812, besides impressment, was the dispute over trade with France.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: jayce (---.mob.bellsouth.net)
Date: 07-19-08 23:50
It must be a full moon.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: N D (---.static.dsl.dodo.com.au)
Date: 07-21-08 03:10
Lily,
Get to know an Islamic family. Please.
Calling all Muslims evil is like calling all Christians evil. The British/American Empire has done so, so much harm to the world's peoples and cultures - your bigotry sounds like David being crushed under Goliath's little toe.
Assuming all of a culture/race/creed are the same as the bad apples just makes you sound ignorant. You can do better.
Get to know an Islamic family. Please.
Nick.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Ro Lefwyn (---.lnngmi.dedicated.static.tds.net)
Date: 07-21-08 09:44
"That might encourage Muslims to police the actions of their own kind, a little more diligently."
Well...I think its fair to say, if this line of thinking is correct...Perhaps the Christian community(the largest and most influential religious organization in the states) should do the same and set an example here in the United States. Police their religious organizations to end the intereference in politics(it prompts an emotional bias that doesn't belong in politics). We have our own terrorism and hate crimes here in the US that has its roots in religious thought--hate crimes directed at gays, at other relgions, blowing up abortion clinics, etc. The US should make sure its house is clean, before ordering other countries to clean theirs. That's how we set an example.
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Lily (---.net)
Date: 07-21-08 13:27
Nick
I'm not suggesting that ALL Muslims are evil. Most are decent law-abiding citizens. Our problem is, knowing which ones are, and which ones are not. And it's this not knowing that could cost us dearly. There are no second chances. Just ask the relatives of those innocent people massacred on 9/11. What it boils down to is this: Are you willing to gamble your child's life on a Muslim family's loyalty to the West? Can you really be that sure of anyone?
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: Ro Lefwyn (---.lnngmi.dedicated.static.tds.net)
Date: 07-21-08 14:06
The Bushe's are apparently....and we all know what's good enough for the Bush family is bad enough for us...
|
|
Re: nuclear power |
Author: N D (---.static.dsl.dodo.com.au)
Date: 07-21-08 20:31
Lily,
The chances of being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the United States in the last, say, fifteen years are less than being killed by bees.
The CIA should really be hunting down and sending ladders (yes, those things that people climb and then fall off) to Guantanamo - they are many times more dangerous than Muslims bent on 75 virgins.
Letting my children get into a car, or be pedestrians, or go swimming is a gazillion times more dangerous than worrying about terrorists.
But then again I haven't been whipped into hysterics by American Government propaganda.
Let's not forget the numbers too. How many innocent Americans/Brits/Aussies have died by Islamic terrorists? How any innocent Islamic people have died by Americans/Brits/Aussies?
Sometimes I think the Islamic terrorists are merely evening the score, though they've got a long long way to go. Then I realise two wrongs don't...
|
|
Sorry. You need to Join WritersNet and activate your account to post a message.
It's quick, easy and free. All we need is a valid email address and the name you wish to use here .
|
|
