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: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

to show Power of nuclear charge may be w/o bombing of cities/towns/..




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 




And to the narcotics guy Sark0y or whatever that is trying to make this idiotic correlation that "they want to test new weapons to help control drug trafficking"..you didnt answer the question.

if you don't understand something, that something is idiotic???
+ you desperately misquoted me



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

to show Power of nuclear charge may be w/o bombing of cities/towns/..


Naieve and ignorant on history. In addition to the US, Germany and Japan also had nuke programs. In this case, we beat them to the punch - oh well. Dont start a fight you arent prepared to finish.

Easy enough



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
... it is about the content of the source, not the source.


When the source makes up the information, or uses partial information to affect opinion, then the content is also a fraud - See defeintion of propoganda (you throw this word at us a lot, yet I dont think you understand it because you dont see the same coming from Iran).

The ironic thing is, you dismiss western media all together. So why in your world, is the content acceptable when you remove the source? If the source cannot be trusted, or is known to lie/mislead/omit, then how to verify the information the source presented?

Personally I think you make this source vs content argument in an attempt to hold onto the info in the article to use it, while closing off any attempt to refute it. Its' the same tactic you use in other threads when you are called out and your info debunked. You make circular arguments and quotes by people in an effort to shift the conversation, moving into the "the info you brought up is irrelevant to this thread" to the "start a new thread if you want to discuss that" .

This thread was based on a half assed report, and printed in a propoganda fashion. You made the following comment in all this mess:

If you disagree regarding the content of the source, then put it forward, and bring your evidence to support your point of view.

Funny you say that, because people did. This is your defense argument through this entire thread:

"Are you trying to undermine this news?"
"A patriot might argue: "NAA, that cant be true, terrorists want handicap babies"
"That is what Hitler was talking about, you should read his quotes sometimes, you will realize the West is using his techniques of manipulation + ideas."
"Saudi Puppet regime + Puppet labels any organized crime Al-Qaeda to please their puppet masters, and support their efforts to __________________"
"Does it matter if such weapons have been banned?"
"How is any of the above related to US using chemical weapons in Afghanistan? "
"What does the above have to do with US using chemical weapons in Afghanistan? "
"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"
"You're all talks but no substance."

One of my favorites when a person made a comment you wanted proof of:
"Substance please."

"This is not about depleted Uranium, this is about non-depleted Uranium." - We use depleted, not UD

You get refuted by a person in the military who provided first hand info - your response to him:

"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."

"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"
"I don't know why you are still arguing?? "
"Your faith is in US, not England, US is England's Ayatollah."
"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?"
"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"
"There's a connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, America invaded both countries."

Another good one when the person destroyed your post:
"It seems people are stuck with "America can't do no wrong" disease, or at least, "it is really hard to believe America can do wrong intentionally" disease.

I seriously advice ATS to study the art of manipulation (brainwashing) used by the Nazis. Your mouth will drop wide open when you realize that US is using the same manipulation techniques against its own population, not to mention trying to spread the same manipulation to the rest of the world.

At least read Hitler's quotes

Ta Ta."

"People need to realize that it is not about the source, it is about the content of the source."
"Most here in ATS don't believe MSM is credible, but they use the content, and only a portion of ATS can differentiate between commentary and report."
"Seriously, read about Hitlers ideology please"
"It is more than the holocaust, and it is more than racism. Then again, the Zionists want you to focus on those two"

When your post is completely dismanteled and your prrof debunked what do you do:

"Anyways, that is for another thread, I will hopefully create a thread putting down the comparisons"
"Read between the lines Slayer, you have been around longer for you to get fouled"
"We are talking about bombed sites, weapons used by US/UK, not weapons used by Taliban. "
""For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none will suffice. " [Joseph Dunninger]
"The above quote has absolutely no substance. "
"Why is everyone moaning about the source?"
"I have already mentioned in this thread that it is not about the source, it is about the content of the source."
"What equates to proof in this case? An American confession?"
"Believing your government is a natural thing." X 7 in the same post because you cant answer without destroying your own argument

Another favorite:
"I think you need to read the sources before opening your mouth, what gives you the right to open your mouth before even reading the content of the source? "

But wait a minute... You argued 4 pages prior to this comment that its not about the source, but the content.

"I can swear people are getting dumber and dumber."
"It is an absurdity to claim Tehran Times is making the claim, Tehran Times is reporting the claim (which is a huge difference), go investigate who is making the claim, what evidence etc."

Hang on, now we need to investigate who made the claim? You just got done saying its the content, not the source. Changed your mind yet again.

"Regarding UN, ha ha haaaa haaaa.." Yet you love the UN when it involves Israel - Floatilla raid comes to mind where you argued the report was absolute and truthful. Another pick the source to back the claim.

"UN organizations want to nail US?

UN was created with the help of US. Get it? To keep the insane US at leash, by giving it what ever it wants so that it might not start a nuclear holocaust with its other paranoid insane buddies (Russia, China etc...) "

Yet you are all about the UN during the Human Rights report on the US. Changed your mind again now that they chastized the US.

"When was the last time US got sanctioned for any of its wrong doings? "
"Ohh wait, some people have the "America can't do no wrong" disease, or at least the "America can't do no wrong intentionally disease"."


In case you didnt notice, you never proved your point Ooozy.. You just deflected, obfuscated, ignored, retorted sarcasm, ignored, told people to not bring up other paralells, only to do that yourself, ignored, obfuscated.

You posted it, then told people to counter it, then ignored them because they did.

Your posts and arguments remind me of the Hindenberg - Unstable, surrounded by a flimsy shell, held together by a thread, filled with combustible material that should never have been used in the first place, and the ability to go down in a blaze, while at the same time serving as warnings to others to try a different approach.

Since you enjoy quotes so much I have one for you:

"Game over man.... game over..." - Hudson

To find someting positive to say about you - While your arguments and supporting info piss me off, it does make me research whatever topic you are blaming the US for, expanding my knowledge.. So thank you for that.

See you in your next thread.. We can pick up where we are leaving off here over there.

Peace out cornbread
edit on 5-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


I understand you clearly. Theres a many number of things I don't undestand that I don't consider idiotic. The assertion that the US is using chemical weapons to control drug traffickin out of Afhganistan, in my opinion, is idiotic.

If its not, its on you to prove it. Give some evidence for such claims.

And fyi, evidence is not proof. Another thing the OP could use a lesson in.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Naieve and ignorant on history.

naive???
most reason to bomb Japan was to test nuclear explosion for real environment




In addition to the US, Germany and Japan also had nuke programs. In this case, we beat them to the punch

some rumors have said pentagon got nuke thanks to german specialists
i don't wanna dispute it -- Just a remark



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


using the winking icon does not give credence to of any of your claims...



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by minigunner
reply to post by oozyism
 


No one is saying America can do no wrong, but your blatant hatred confuses your thinking. The PPM or PPB takes time for levels to rise. So lets look at history shall we. Who has been there before and lost and had access to Uranium in their weaponry...........
If you guessed the former U.S.S.R then your right on the ball, if not, then I appologize for your stupidity. The U.S. isn't innocent by any means, but we aren't always the scapegoat and can't except all the worlds problems.


The anyone read the report?

Do people just talk without even doing any research?

The Tehran Times article points to a research done in 2002, right after the invasion, samples were taken from bombed sites. Not USSR bombed sites, but UK/US bombed sites, the bombs made huge craters which suggested it was new generation bunker buster bombs sent to Afghanistan for testing. Eye witnesses say that after the explosion you would see water coming out, meaning it reached under ground rivers. Even flash floods were reported.

Read the damn reports, if I could copy it, then that would be good, but I can't because it doesn't allow copy and paste.

It would help if people would stop the blind faith in their corrupt government, and stop showing symptoms of "America can't do no wrong" disease.

The report was written all the way back in 2002 and heavily ignored by the media. It is still ignored, but when we see deformed children everywhere [oozy shakes head]

The evidence is there, go look it up

.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 




The assertion that the US is using chemical weapons to control drug traffickin out of Afhganistan, in my opinion, is idiotic.

Just to be clear.
1. i said: pentagon came in Afghan to control narcoTraffic.
2. no evidence is to aver pentagon has not applied chemical or whatever else of denied-war-methods.
3. no evidence to assert pentagon has no had secret program there to test "something new".
------------------



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

FOR THOSE WHO STILL ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OR CRYING BECAUSE THE SOURCE IS TEHRAN TIMES





With the exception of Natural Uranium, alternative explanations are attributable to radio-isotopic signatures (ratios of isotopes of uranium) not substantiated by the laboratory results of Afghan civilians and bombsites. The isotopic measurements are objectively reliable and cannot be misrepresented other than by intentional adulteration of the specimens or intentional efforts to contaminate the population to mask the origins of contamination. Notably, the results of the analysis of biological specimens (urine) and the bomb-crater samples are compatible.


Read the whole article and go to Google and type UMRC report. Once you type UMRC report the second and third search result is UMRC report, the second search result is regarding Afghan contamination, the third is regarding Iraq contamination.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


From what I read, all you have done in this thread is:

1. Attack me and the source - there is a saying, "if you can't destroy the message, kill the messenger"


2. Completely ignored the evidence Tehran Times provides, from experts on the ground who went to Afghanistan to investigate the contamination - there is a saying, "if you can't refute something, ignore it".

3. Then in page 1, you try to argue without even reading the evidence which has been provided, not knowing that everything you said in page one has already been taken in to consideration in the HMRC reports.

4. I provide the link to HMRC and you completely ignored it, ran back to your "anti-American" rhetorics, even though I have proven that the only anti I have is, anti-ignorance.

You are pushing for people to be ignorant, just because you, yourself can't handle the truth because you have wrapped a "America can't do no wrong" Universe around yourself.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Im assuming english is not your first language so Ill let the incoherent babble slide, but your quotes seem pretty clear in your attempts have an argument.


first & foremost, to control narcoTtraffic is strong weapon per se; to test new drugs, based upon new GMO, are useful moment too i don't assert something with 100%, but i just observe possible secret activities there


and...




warZone always has been nice place to test something new + most reason to pentagon in Afghan has been to control narcoTraffic


So, to me that dismisses your first point. The other two are completely off topic and meaningless to me.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
This is discusting if true - any of you defending the use of chemical weapons by the USA are sick. There is no need for chemical weapons, why should people have to suffer a slow painful death, why should their children and future generations have to suffer. Think how easily chemical weapons can devistate more lives than the initial targets lives.

YOU CLAIM TO BE BETTER - SO ACT LIKE IT.

This is a crime against humanity - one of those morals you are supposed to uphold.

I SPIT on anyone who tries to justify doing this.
edit on 5-12-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


We didnt test the nuke on Japan, we tested the nuke in the desert near Arizona / New Mexico. We dropped 2 nuke on Japan to end the war.

Again they should not have attacked us if they were not prepared to go the full 9 yards.

Since the US had no contact with German scientists until after the war, you are once again proving your lack of knowledge.

The onlything you are proving is you play the same games Ooozzy does.. You make comments, offer no facts to back them up, have your post destroyed by people with facts, then you make some comments that are once again wrong.

Good job


Before you argue with the adults here, head back to grade school, find a 10 year old, and have him teach you history. Then come back.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 

mate, perhaps, you missed my humble remark


i don't assert something with 100%, but i just observe possible secret activities there




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Dude, do you realize the heading of your thread is called U.S. using chemical weapons in Afhganistan?

Chemical being the key word here. Chemical weapons implies this per wikipedia



Chemical weapons (CW) are formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They are classified as weapons of mass destruction, and have been "condemned by the civilised world". CW have been used in past conflicts; and preparedness doctrine anticipates their potential for future use. Numerous international agreements are in force with regard to chemical weapons.

Lethal unitary chemical agents and munitions are extremely volatile and hazardous chemical weapons stockpiled by many nations. The most dangerous of these are nerve agents GA, GB, and VX, and vesicant (blister) agents H, HT, and HD. All are in liquid form at normal room temperature.[2][3]


There is a massive difference. I dont know much about depleted uranium so I don't know if they are worse, not as bad or whatever. But they are not considered chemical weapons. Maybe you should change the headline of your thread.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
This is discusting if true - any of you defending the use of chemical weapons by the USA are sick. There is no need for chemical weapons, why should people have to suffer a slow painful death, why should their children and future generations have to suffer. Think how easily chemical weapons can devistate more lives than the initial targets lives.

YOU CLAIM TO BE BETTER - SO ACT LIKE IT.

This is a crime against humanity - one of those morals you are supposed to uphold.

I SPIT on anyone who tries to justify doing this.
edit on 5-12-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)


Heres an idea.. How about you practice what your whining about and do some research before you judge what did or did not happen. Failure to do that, and your no better than the comments you jsut leveled at everyone else.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
something tells me in the next 10-20 years all the soldiers will be reporting massive cancer rates among other possible issues. i thought that DU weapons were banned a few years ago its bad for our own soldiers and its worse on the civilian population because they have to live with it in the environment now what a great way to punish both sides.

personally i believe all forces should withdraw there is no point in being there anymore dont really see a point in ever being over there honestly. the twin towers get taken down by a group of people not a country but the U.S decides to siege and invade iraq on a basis of eliminating the W.M.D threat (not the people who attacked the U.S) which was an epic fail due to the fact that nothing of real consequence was ever found. the secondary objective was to capture good old O.B.L who has somehow managed to elude special forces in the mountains by foot with the ammount of spy sat's floating above our heads how hard can it be find someone over what 5-7 years.

both our soldiers and the civilian population caught in the cross fire suffer from the constant battle the respective countrys should pick up the fight if they really want to be free of radicals our job is done.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I see you are big into science fiction with your version of event.

My first post challenged your post and claims. Instead of answering those issues that were brought up, you pulled your typical song and dance, using the defletion techniques I posted about 3 up from this one.

You have not proven anything. Your source is not considered reliable for the information, because its from Iran. The article contains no verifiable information on any of the claims. Just because some guy claims it happened, does not mean it did happen. There is no links to his finished report that would detail what his observations were, he doesnt describe the chemicals used, he stated chemical weapons and a paragraph lateer in the article he used biological weapons, contradicting the entire article since its based on checmical weapons.

You have failed to defend anything that you have printed. This is a perfect example of the the difference between western nations and some middle east nations.

Here in the west we can challenge such issues, demand proof, and get verification through private citizen and media endeavors.

For you, you have been trained to hate anything American and Israel. You have never been to either nation, yet you claim to be an expert on what we do. You want people to swallow your argument hook line and sinker, only to get torqued when they question your theory and claims.

As I said.. Game over man... Gam over..

Come back when you have real verifiable non biased, not propoganda research that is independant, and cites all of the details that your article leaves out.

Absent that, you wiull continue to have your posts refuted, and will continue to dig yourself a hole that eventually will end up in you making threads, and finding your the only one who posted in it. For historical reference, you need to familiarize yourself with the story of the boy who cried wolf.

You are that boy... You have cried wolf too many times with your propoganda articles, and you are coming close to finding a real story, but no one will care because its from you.

As I said.. We debated your piece, we tore it apart, we asked questions, you ignored them, we pointed out errors, you ignored the errors, you make the claim its not the source but the content.

Content but not source... a last ditch argument that is the equivelant of " I know you are but what am I"



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 




The assertion that the US is using chemical weapons to control drug traffickin out of Afhganistan, in my opinion, is idiotic.

Just to be clear.
1. i said: pentagon came in Afghan to control narcoTraffic.
2. no evidence is to aver pentagon has not applied chemical or whatever else of denied-war-methods.
3. no evidence to assert pentagon has no had secret program there to test "something new".
------------------


And you have provided no evidence to support the claims you are making. So until you post your sources, we will just asume you are making it up, which most likely is the case here.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join