moD defense chiefs admit to nuclear deaths

"The dramatic admission, made after years of denials, features in papers filed with the High Court in London by Ministry of Defence lawyers."

That's right - the same MoD who have stated they may be willing to use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities" in their 30 year report:

Find it for download here:

Ministry of Defence | MicroSite | Development Concepts Doctrine Centre | Our Publications | Strategic Trends Programme

See page 85 where it says:

"Development of Neutron Weapons
The political purpose most commonly envisaged for nuclear weapons has been to deter nuclear attack by, or to offset the conventional superiority of, a potential adversary.
Future concerns will centre on the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists and other irregular entities, for coercive purposes or to inflict massive casualties. In addition, existing assumptions about the employment of nuclear weapons may be challenged in still more radical ways, including the exploration of neutron possibilities.
The ability to inflict organic destruction, while leaving infrastructure intact, might make it a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world.

Also see:
Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future | Science | The Guardian

which covers this too.

When you consider half a million Britain's are on a DNA database, just consider who these "terrorists and other irregular entities" are.

Whatever your interpretation is, why are the MoD referring to "extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world." ? :-) :-)

But don't think the military would harm you or it's own servicemen ?

Watch this....

Video: Military Coverup of Deadly Vaccinations
[Rep]

Spot the difference

The MoD says:

Originally Posted by MoD:
Future concerns will centre on the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists and other irregular entities, for coercive purposes or to inflict massive casualties.

youcanhandlethetruth says:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
the same MoD who have stated they may be willing to use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities" in their 30 year report

I shall leave it to others to determine YCHTT's ability to parse a simple sentence in order to understand the correct meaning.
[Rep]

Project Abraham

D:
[Rep]

Ha ha ha - nice try Unionist !

Except that you have failed to realize one important/imperative point.....

The moD statement said "potential acquisition of nuclear weapons"

Did I say "potential acquisition of neutron weapons" in my interpretation ?

No I said "Willing to use......"

Believe it or not, acquiring and using, is not the same thing, so don't try to compare apples and pears for a start.

But actually that's not the main reason....

I was not quoting the moD word for word when I said "use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities".
That was my interpretation (rightly or wrongly).

So why did I say:
"use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities" ?

Well simply because:

1) if the moD are talking about the "exploration of neutron possibilites", then it isn't the so called terrorists (that the government are trying to protect us from) that are "exploring" these possibilities is it ?
Obviously it is the moD.
(Unless of course the MoD are helping the terrorists but even I won't go there on this occasion...)

2) Presuming they are thinking of using these "neutron possibilities" on an enemy they can identify (cough), then who do you suppose the enemy would be that they might consider using it on ?

Presumably the "terrorists and other irregular entities" that carry the stated and initial nuclear threat to which they are responding ?

It's not that difficult actually (if you read it in full.)

So Unionist please don't criticize my ability to parse a simple sentence when you are:
1) making a comparison between an MoD quote and my interpretation.
2) you're taking it totally out of context
3) you were totally wrong in your comparison of "potential acquisition of" and "willing to use" in the first place !

You may want eveyone to have the intellect of a banana Unionist, but some people can actually use logic and reason to form logical arguments.



Obviously you cannot. Try slowly reading the whole paragraph again.

And furthermore if you're so great at understanding the meaning of the entire passage, then what's your take/interpretation about the MoD's use of "neutron exploration" with regard to "ethnic cleansing in an overpopulated world" ?

Let's hear it please.......
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Lazyguy:
Project Abraham

D:

Interesting "x-files" spoof type drama, but what is it and how it is relevant ?
[Rep]

Government vaccines that kill people!

America First America Only
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Lazyguy:
Government vaccines that kill people!

America First America Only

Oh god - another UFO site..... :-)

Why do you come on this forum lazyguy ?

Obviously not to discuss anything important by the look of it.....
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I was not quoting the moD word for word when I said "use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities".
That was my interpretation (rightly or wrongly).

Your interpretation? You said "the same MOD who have stated..." - i.e., a factual claim about what the MoD has said.

I find your "interpretation" of the MoD's analysis quite bizarre, but that's nothing unusual. You jump to extraordinary conclusions from very little evidence then expect us to take your conclusions as fact. You have done this on so many occasions that I have given up bothering to point it out most of the time.
[Rep]

SrpaNet

It's all linked, man, I know it!
[Rep]

Again, you're misrepresenting what I actually said.

When I said stated, I was not quoting, I was saying what they stated.

Maybe I was wrong to use the word stated when I should have used "said" but my comment was still true nonetheless.

I never said "the same MOd who have stated "..........." "

I said:
"That's right - the same MoD who have stated they may be willing to use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities" in their 30 year report:"

The use of quotes is how genuine people quote sources.

So did the MoD state(sorry say) they may be willing to use neutron weapons on "terrorists and other irregular entities" or not ?

Yes or no ?

And I notice you have failed to answer my previous question too......

If you want people to believe you are trustworthy and the supposed voice of reason Unionist(and I'm sure you do :-)) then answer the simple questions please and stop taking me out of context by cutting off my sentences using with your double quote illusion.
[Rep]