It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. using chemical weapons in Afghanistan: report

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonjah1


I will fill in the gaps!

But the Iranian regime is so believable that they are not puppets to the Mullahs....

But the Afghan govt is so on the up and up, and that's why Kharzai's brother shows up in the UAE with $50 million US Dollars in a suitcase..... I'm sure he got that money from digging in the caves in Afghanistan



Are you serious?

I know Iran has an Ayatollah, the same way I know Saudi Arabia has an Ayatollah (which is the US).

I know the Afghan government is a puppet government, I know Afghanistan has an Ayatollah (which is the US).

How is any of the above related to US using chemical weapons in Afghanistan?




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The relationship is you believe that the Tehran news source is true--that the US is using chemical weapons in Afghanistan--but you do not say who is the Ayatollah of Iran....

Could it be China, or is it Russia?

Other than biased news reports, what proof can you provide that this is true? And if it is, we all know that Kharzai is so mentally ill, he would have disclosed that by now.


edit on 4-12-2010 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonjah1
reply to post by oozyism
 


The relationship is you believe that the Tehran news source is true--that the US is using chemical weapons in Afghanistan--but you do not say who is the Ayatollah of Iran....

Could it be China, or is it Russia?


Iran already has an Ayatollah DUUUH (Ayatollah)
They have no foreign Ayatollahs, remember the revolution? They topple an American puppet?

ZZZZ

Again

What does the above have to do with US using chemical weapons in Afghanistan? The evidence is there in the article, go research it, and actually post with substance.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Always thought it strange that the u.s always claims not to use / possess chemical weapons they do alot of development of them at Ft. Detrick Md. if memory serves me correct.. Though they may have moved the facilities now.. Was also large stockpiles of chem weapons at a base in utah.. along with the u.s possessing weapons grade anthrax, ebola and other viruses.. Dont kid yourselfs the u.s has the capabilities to produce chemical and biological weapons along with researches new ones constantly.. Give them time and they will put them to use.. Cant let all that research be wasted now can they ?



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I'm not american, nor do I believe america can do no wrong.

Blind flailing hatred of america fueled stupid statements like that are why none of your posts or topics are credible, just a bit of friendly advice.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valdestine
reply to post by oozyism
 


I'm not american, nor do I believe america can do no wrong.

Blind flailing hatred of america fueled stupid statements like that are why none of your posts or topics are credible, just a bit of friendly advice.


Substance please.

You're all talks but no substance.

I'm still waiting for you to prove something, but you are just going on and on and on about how much you love me



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
First, I'd like to point out that I have first-hand experience with the subject matter and I can assure you (and everyone else), that chemical weapons were never used in my presense, or the presense of anyone else I know. In fact, I haven't even heard of chemical weapons being used in Afghanistan, past maybe CS gas (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, or "tear gas").

With that being said, our military does expend depleted uranium, though they aren't really trying to hide it. In fact, it isn't just the US who is using DU, as the Taliban and other countries are too. The Soviets even used it when they were in Afghanistan.

DU or depleted uranium is a very hard substance used for armoring various vehicles and other assets. Because it is used in the armoring of these assets, it then must be used to defeat this armor, therefore it used in armor-piercing munitions.

DU is dangerous and the government doesn't try to pretend otherwise. Prolonged exposure to it can kill you or even give you cancer. Because of this, soldiers (many) are required to be briefed on it annually. If a soldier is on an anti-tank team for instance, he is going to be exposed to DU much more than say a cook or a clerk. When a DU munition round strikes a DU armor vehicle, that DU gets dissapated into the immediate atmosphere, thus allowing it to be absorbed into the body at higher rates than just being exposed to undamaged armor or unspent munitions. Also, spent munitions that lodge in the Earth will degrade over time and with enough, it will contaminate the soil.

Again, this really isn't news and has even been mentioned here on ATS before. The government isn't trying to hide this either, as it isn't just us using or taking advantage of DU. Instead, it's our allies and enemies alike, along with our predecessors, who also use the dangerous depleted uranium in Afghanistan. If we didn't use DU, then our enemies would have an extreme advantage.

For whatever it's worth, I became sick from DU, along with a few others that I know. The government made no qualms with owning up to it and compensating us accordingly. We didn't even have to so much as ask or complain. Does that make it okay? Absolutely not, though it does just go to show that the government isn't trying to hide it.

In sum, I have never seen chemical weapons being used in Afghanistan, past maybe CS gas, though there certainly is munitions being spent in Afghanistan that contain the substance "depleted uranium" and it isn't just the US either. Almost every developed country (and even countries not-so-developed) use DU, as it is an essential part of armor and armor piercing munitions. If DU is found in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be DU deposited by American weapons and/or armor only. It's just a fact of war. Wherever there is war, expect a high level of DU to contaminate the soil and possibly even the air.

Look, I don't agree with the war, either war, but I also doon't agree with propaganda or shifting blame where blame isn't due. Want to get on the US for using DU, fine though one should also hold everyone else in contempt for the same practices. DU is like firearms in that if it didn't exist, it wouldn't be needed, though because it does exist and because people/countries use it, you then need it in order to protect yourself/country.



--airspoon


edit on 4-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by sonjah1
reply to post by oozyism
 


The relationship is you believe that the Tehran news source is true--that the US is using chemical weapons in Afghanistan--but you do not say who is the Ayatollah of Iran....

Could it be China, or is it Russia?


Iran already has an Ayatollah DUUUH (Ayatollah)
They have no foreign Ayatollahs, remember the revolution? They topple an American puppet?

ZZZZ

Again

What does the above have to do with US using chemical weapons in Afghanistan? The evidence is there in the article, go research it, and actually post with substance.


Oh, Iran has its own Ayatollah, eh? Is that the same Ayatollah that distorts the Islamic religion, and kills in its name?

Didn't you see the images on TV when a bunch of state police shot innocent bystanders on the streets for holding signs in Iran?

Or, stoning people to death because they *believed* without proof that they did something wrong?

And holds innocent diplomats hostages for days on end?

We are supposed to ignore all of these human rights violations, but believe the Iranian media when they report on the US supposedly using chemical weapons in Afghanistan.

Wow, what a credible media source. Surely, you cannot be that naive...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


This is not about depleted Uranium, this is about non-depleted Uranium.

I think that is why they are calling it Chemical weapons.

Regarding your service in the military and the absence of Chemical weapons in your presence, I have nothing more to add, good soldiers are usually kept at dark, if they find out, they are usually bullied, attack and killed.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Not one soldier in Afghanistan carries or wears NBC suits or is dosing themselves with antropine.

That fact alone disproves the op.

If any NBC strikes have been actioned then the ground troops would be in danger too with no NBC protection, thus this double edged sword would also decimate our own troops.

Epic fail oozy



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yissachar1
Not one soldier in Afghanistan carries or wears NBC suits or is dosing themselves with antropine.

That fact alone disproves the op.

If any NBC strikes have been actioned then the ground troops would be in danger too with no NBC protection, thus this double edged sword would also decimate our own troops.

Epic fail oozy


How many soldiers did you see wearing NBC suits in Vietnam?

I think you blind faith in US is distorting your ability to see reality.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by Yissachar1
Not one soldier in Afghanistan carries or wears NBC suits or is dosing themselves with antropine.

That fact alone disproves the op.

If any NBC strikes have been actioned then the ground troops would be in danger too with no NBC protection, thus this double edged sword would also decimate our own troops.

Epic fail oozy


How many soldiers did you see wearing NBC suits in Vietnam?

I think you blind faith in US is distorting your ability to see reality.



Agent orange did indeed effect American troops. There are many stories online from vets who was exposed alongside the viet cong.

No NBC protection you see?

In modern times every soldier is trained in NBC warfare and in conflicts where there could be a possible nuclear, biological or chemical attack, troops are always wearing nbc suits at various stages of dress depending on the level of threat.

I know this because i am a qualified nbc instructor.

Also my faith is in England.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


I don't know why you are still arguing??

I already proved that US didn't give its troops protection when using Chem/Bio weapons in Vietnam, what makes you think the US has changed?

and

Your faith is in US, not England, US is England's Ayatollah.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



This is not about depleted Uranium, this is about non-depleted Uranium.


The difference between depleted uranium and natural uranium is minute, to say the least. Depleted uranium is uranium with a content of the isotope U-235 at under .07%, while natural uranium has a content of the isotope U-235 at .7% (or under). This isn't a big difference and well below the margin of error for many tests. In other words, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between the two, especially by testing contaminated materials.

Natural uranium has a content of mostly U-238 (99.20-99.30%) and only a very small percentage of the isotope U-235, though for uranium use in nuclear weapons, reactors or medicines, that uranium is enriched to have a much higher U-235 content. Generally speaking, whatever uranium is left after the enrichment process, is considered depleted uranium and is used for armor and armor piercing.

Lets just say that you were testing a bomb site and found traces of uranium at that site. Unless those traces found extremely high amounts of the U-235 isotope, then you wouldn't be able to tell the depleted uranium from natural uranium or non-depleted uranium.


Regarding your service in the military and the absence of Chemical weapons in your presence, I have nothing more to add, good soldiers are usually kept at dark, if they find out, they are usually bullied, attack and killed.


I can understand this viewpoint, though the issue isn't as black and white. There is a protocol for the use of nuclear or chemical weapons, thus it wouldn't be so easily hidden, unless of course protocol was broken, which also wouldn't be so easy to hide.

Also, believe it or not, but most soldiers are good-hearted people. I just think that if there was use of nuclear or chemicals weapons, there would surely be rumors and it is almost a fact that many soldiers would know about it, if even indirectly, such as through protocol or lack thereof.

--airspoon
edit on 4-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


I don't know why you are still arguing??

I already proved that US didn't give its troops protection when using Chem/Bio weapons in Vietnam, what makes you think the US has changed?

and

Your faith is in US, not England, US is England's Ayatollah.




Oookkkayyyy

US troops have the best NBC equiptment in the world. Alongside us brits for example in the first gulf war, we were almost constantly in NBC clothing! Yes. Even my American colleagues lol. And we were all having to take NAPS (nerve agent pre treatment set tablets) in case we were subjected to a nerve agent attack.

Our armoured vehicles all have nbc filters which makes it possible to sit in them without protective clothing or respirators even in extreme nbc conditions.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

As for your last comment. I am proud to call my American cousins family.. Not fond of the government, not fund of my own, but love my family warts and all.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The Global Research article I posted in the previous post suggests that samples were also taken from bomb sites


They have also researched to find out the cause of the contamination, I think you should take a look at it.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   


Also, believe it or not, but most soldiers are good- hearted people. I just think that if there was use of nuclear or chemicals weapons, there would surely be rumors and it is almost a fact that many soldiers would know about it, if even indirectly such as through protocol or lack thereof.
reply to post by airspoon
 


True

Troops would refuse to soldier!

They would be the first to blab to the media and rightly so



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


I have proven my point, you are not even taking it in to consideration/

I'm not gonna ask you why, because I already know



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by airspoon
 


The Global Research article I posted in the previous post suggests that samples were also taken from bomb sites


They have also researched to find out the cause of the contamination, I think you should take a look at it.



Im with you with the DU issue.
Its way worse than leaving cluster bombs and mine behind and their use should be banned.

But chemical weapons are not being used.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
First off, this whole post is misleading. No where do i see anything about chemical weapons. Depleted uranium is nothing new and your a hypocrite for suggesting the US uses them and the Taliban would not had they the chance. You know damn well they would.

Yeah, like the Taliban dont use weapons that target either soldier or civilian indiscriminately.

The difference is, wherever possible the allied troops in Afghanistan TRY to avoid civilian casualties. Yes i know it happens. The Taliban could care less who dies as long as it furthers their cause.

Case in point:

www.chicagotribune.com...

www.independent.co.uk...

www.medindia.net...

The last one is perhaps particularly interesting to Oozy. It hits a little closer to home as its an Indian newssite and it details the public executions by the Taliban of a young couple who commited the crime of falling in love

The Taliban could care less who they kill, they even kill their own people indiscriminately and without an ounce of remorse. Such savagery must be fought without relent, lest they ever gain a foothold in our parts of the world.
edit on 4-12-2010 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join