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.

 

'US used nukes on Iraq, Afghanistan'

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Can you link your sources to support the DU argument. I would like to read up on it to see if its been changed.




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Bold claim, can he back it up?

How would one prove this after the fact? Depleted uranium was so used so heavily in Iraq that traces of radiation are all over, greatly affecting the birth rate and infant deaths; plenty of statistics from Iraqi officials on that here:

Deformed babies in Fallujah Iraq LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS


Pretty sure the doctors claimed it was the non-stop stress of the War while being pregnant....



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Idk i am reading this atm..... on Afganistan



"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

The results also confirmed that the toxic radiation was not attributable to ‘heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination

www.globalresearch.ca...



not trying to be the apologist.....

but wasn't the fact that there are big deposits of rare Earths' in the Afghanistan region given as one reason the U*SA was there--- outside the Opium production lure.

Perhaps there are lodes of Uranium rich Ores there in the Tora Bora mountains...along with the ?Tungstun?
or whatever minerals that were said to be worth the costs of engaging in a war over there to eventually control


besides all Nukes or Atomic Demolitions have telltale 'signatures' which would tell just where the radioactive material came from...triggers aside



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Can you link your sources to support the DU argument. I would like to read up on it to see if its been changed.


What argument? That DU is poison or that it is being used in the middle east?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Can you link your sources to support the DU argument. I would like to read up on it to see if its been changed.


What argument? That DU is poison or that it is being used in the middle east?


yeah that argument. Can you link me to your sources.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I am not saying it did happen nor am I saying it never. I have read several acticles that say it did, but it is well outside my remit. That is why I posted it up on ATS for peeps to have a look at. This is a conspiracy site so to all you peeps that are just saying it could not happen. Please explain to me why or dig a little deeper...
Things do happen that go well under the rader. After the DU was used UNEP were sent in to investigate. There results were farce and they grossly underestimated the environmental damage caused..
I referenced to a peer review paper above. So please explain away the evidence before you turn up the heat and flame me...



"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999


www.globalresearch.ca...


and another very intersting article which seems to substaniate that something else was being used...




Afghans' uranium levels spark alert By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent A small sample of Afghan civilians have shown "astonishing" levels of uranium in their urine, an independent scientist says.


....




Other researchers suggest new types of radioactive weapons may have been used in Afghanistan. The scientist is Dr Asaf Durakovic, of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), based in Canada. Dr Durakovic, a former US army adviser who is now a professor of medicine, said in 2000 he had found "significant" DU levels in two-thirds of the 17 Gulf veterans he had tested.


www.siliconinvestor.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Here is Peter Eyre's blog.

petereyrepatch.blogspot.com...

One's eyes are immediately accosted by the term "false flag". He tells 'Zionists' to leave his page. He thinks that the French control UKSF and the Royal Marines. He doesn't know the difference between MI5 and MI6. I could go on.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Can you link your sources to support the DU argument. I would like to read up on it to see if its been changed.


What argument? That DU is poison or that it is being used in the middle east?


yeah that argument. Can you link me to your sources.


I asked which one, there were two to choose from.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Bold claim, can he back it up?

How would one prove this after the fact? Depleted uranium was so used so heavily in Iraq that traces of radiation are all over, greatly affecting the birth rate and infant deaths; plenty of statistics from Iraqi officials on that here:

Deformed babies in Fallujah Iraq LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS


What happened in Fallujah is nothing hsort of war crimes... As for backing it up... Here is a little more evidence that suggests something different was being used...




The UMRC says: "Independent monitoring of the weapon types and delivery systems indicate that radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads were being used by the coalition forces." There is no official support for its claims, or backing from other scientists.


www.siliconinvestor.com...
edit on 1-12-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
Well, if you have a thousand tons of depleted uranium in a close area it would resemble a nuke.

How do you figure? DU can be used as a tamper in nuclear bombs, but not a thousand tons of it. You'd also have to explain the lack of fission products, blast damage, thermal injuries, etc. It's more likely that a thousand tons of depleted uranium just means a lot of anti-armor ammo was expended in an area.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


Its not just about peter eyre... The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) is claiming that something different to depleted uranium was being used...




It says: "Without exception, every person donating urine specimens tested positive for uranium internal contamination. "The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf veterans tested in 1999.

"If UMRC's Nangarhar findings are corroborated in other communities across Afghanistan, the country faces a severe public health disaster... Every subsequent generation is at risk."


www.siliconinvestor.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
so US amassed DU into essentially, a 'dirty' makeshift nuke as far as latent radiation,

and we see evidence of that in all the mutated, deformed births/miscarriages, and the sick kids

heck iraq & afghanistan people look like Chernobyl victims in many towns. what more proof do people want other than the 'exact best estimate' of how much DU was used, how much radiation will be latent in the I/A environment, and how it compares to Hiro & Naga.



WOMDs



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I would assume that since it is public knowledge that DU is being used, that you are referring to my sources that it is poisonous? Is that even in question? I was unaware that anyone would question that Uranium is poisonous, but ok....

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.thewe.cc...
pubrecord.org...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.democracynow.org...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now, this is a subject I have been reading about for years, so i can hardly link you to all of my sources, but here are a few quick articles on the subject.

It should be noted that the WHO claims no effects have "been reported", but obviously, there is evidence out there to the contrary.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Sorry no.. Just whatever sources you were using to support your argument t in the thread. There was another thread on here sometime back dealing with Iraq and DU. The main person behind that study actually had undisclosed connections to different governments that placed his research into question.

I wanted to see what you were pulling from to see your argument - nothing more. Just wanted to learn.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
they've been using du rounds the entire time in the middle east and just because the uranium is "depleted" doesnt mean its any less dangerous, anyone who thinks otherwise should just turn their computer off and go back to sleep



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
Well, if you have a thousand tons of depleted uranium in a close area it would resemble a nuke.
We will see I guess.


No it would not it would not resemble anything like a nuke. Different isotopes have very different signatures...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Is it not a plausible theory that the weapons used have never been seen before or the knowledge of, has been kept in complete secrecy?

Everybody seems to be scratching their heads on it, think of the billions of dollars poured in to military research and what modern technology is capable of.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
Is it not a plausible theory that the weapons used have never been seen before or the knowledge of, has been kept in complete secrecy?

Everybody seems to be scratching their heads on it, think of the billions of dollars poured in to military research and what modern technology is capable of.


This is something I like to point out as often as I can....we are 60 years removed from nuclear weaponry being used.....do people really think we havent developed beyond them?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
US already has a long pattern and thus track record of being the world's biggest hypocrite..

so it follows US would of gone into Iraq/Afghanistan on a 'war' against WOMDs ironically when in reality there were none.

and did.

except those used by US in the destruction of Iraq Afghanistan civilians itself, millions of them and for decades or even centuries to come.

hello, mideast genocide. of course US military try to get away with nuking the region without bona-fide confirmable 'nukes' but theres the radioactive smokin gun, as well as the long track record of worldwide oppression & deceit.



also, US funds Iran's nukes.. it sums up to WW3 to be the biggest 'false flag' in history, complements of world tyrant US of A..


edit on 1-12-2011 by ignant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well, if its true that Tora Bora was nuked then someone needs to tell the afghani's because they are planning a resort there.

Snippet:

Tora Bora Tourist Resort
Before anyone heard of Osama bin Laden, Tora Bora was known as a mystic picnic spot. Plans are on to turn Tora Bora into a £5.3million tourist resort. Hotels and restaurants are being built on the mountains surrounding the caves.

source: afghanistan.saarctourism.org...




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join