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.

 

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Maybe before buying into this hook line and sinker you spend a bit more time doing some research on the principle characters behind the report. This crusade of theirs is not new, its not contained to Fallujah or the Middle East either.

Dr. Busby, Malak Hamdan and the others have been parroting the same bunk over and over. Its along the same lines of the report that came out of Afghanistan regarding the use of DU rounds there. That report was put together by another supposed neutral party concerned only for the welfare of the locals. What was left out, as is the same in this case, is the connections the people have when it comes to various governments and international orginazations running their own agenda by using information in a manner that does not support the accusations.

Specifically in this article it clearly states the cancer is higher yet has no idea why, suggesting its because of american weapons. There is no difinitive link between the 2 however thats the usggestion because they cant explain it.

Even the report itself mimics the details of the report from Afghanistan.

How about they possibly look at the reported use of chemical weapons during that operation by Saddam forces? Or the amount removed after operations ended there.

Phosphorous rounds are not prohibited by the UN. They are prohibited from being used on civilians howevr they can be used in illumination scenarios as well as smoke screen to cover movement.

The innaccuracoes are staggering and it appears no apparent research aside from pointing a finger and yelling they did it went into his findings.

Absolute rubbish and nothing more...

another example of this guys singular focus -
U.S. Weapons Poison Europe
Radiation from Iraq war detected in UK atmospherev- 2006

edit on 27-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.

The actual level of acute and Chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.

A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."

However, the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations which is responsible for setting health research norms and standards, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.[11][12] This report has been criticized for not including possible long term effects of DU on the human body.

Source
To summarise, it is not just that Uranium is radioactive but it is also toxic to the human body.

Various studies have been performed on the effects and some studies show an increase but the WHO studies do not.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

Thanks for your perspective, and yes I was aware you were a service member, hence the 'brothers in arms' comment.


the aerosolized particles after a DU round has been fired do not remain in the air like a cloud.

But to the people the particles do settle on in the briefness, is it cause for concern in your opinion? I can see this issue has many facets and I appreciate your view. Do you think the shrapnel and shell casings that remain long after the battles can cause any harm?

I like to use a more personal analogy when considering these things, and I ask this in general, not just towards you, would you let your kids play around such environments with DU shrapnel and shell casings? If the answer is no, then that kind of supports the notion that just the uncertainty alone is enough to warrant further investigation from independent investigators.

spec



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


The detonation of nuclear weapons even underground have an unmistakable signature. Thats how we know and other nations know if the other side is playing by "the rules". No way would the US use "nuclear tipped" bunker busters or anything else except total war. And do you have any idea just how powerful non-nuclear "conventional" bunker busters are? There are many ways they can get you; go through solid rock, or what is usually subsurface soil/rock aggregate with water being some where in the mix.

The truth is our "conventional" weapons are so powerful (like MOAB) the total yield is that of a small nuclear weapon these days (as weapons have become more accurate, nuclear weapons have themselves had smaller and smaller yields) The truth is why bother using a nuke which is just going to get everyone very nervous, understandably, when you just don't have to? Its not a "military tactic" Its called stupid. If anyone has any evidence of this, then trot it out for all the world to see. Just because someone heard a big boom and spilled their scotch DOES NOT mean it was a nuke!

Foot note: Traditionally, we have referred to conventional weapons as anything not nuclear, biological or chemical. Conventional weapons are bad enough, but we have gradients of non-nuclear weapons explosive ones that now have for various reasons are as powerful as low yield nukes but no radiation, fission or fission-fusion. H bombs. So I don't buy it. I have been (to much so) up close to a fuel air munition. That deploys an explosive mist, and then is detonated.

The technology goes back to the Vietnam war and was used to "obliterate" an area of a tropical area big enough to land a chopper. What was not reported and we had them as early as 1971-72 was FAM weapons that could clear enough land to put in an airport. They were never used as the seismic shock would have then looked like a nuke, only it wasn't

If my country uses weapons they aren't supposed to I'm the first one to bitch, and I can and do loudly. But false charges prevent us from preventing the crap we need to. By the way, that specials G class MOAB I saw detonated? It would have not destroyed but wiped a small town so off the map you would never know one was ever there. So dealing with limitations on so called conventional weapons is a full time job.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



that report was put together by another supposed neutral party concerned only for the welfare of the locals. What was left out, as is the same in this case, is the connections the people have when it comes to various governments and international orginazations running their own agenda by using information in a manner that does not support the accusations.

This has to include our own gov too right? Acknowledging any ill actions could create liability issues and negative perception from the public and troops, so yea your analogy applies to US officials, scientists etc too, which still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The scope of this issue is so big that I can understand the reluctance to tackle it from any 'official' groups.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Nice to see a voice of reason on this subject. We have enough real horrors invented by our barbaric species then to invent fiction. By the way, when you mentioned the use of Saddam's forces using both chemical (largely mustard gas, its cheap) and sarin a nerve gas against the Iranians, and long before he even used the nastier VX, a nerve gas that produce's a particularly protected agonizing death, and the others aren't exactly lemonade, against the Kurds post Iraq War one, I made a loud and formal protest to President Reagan through channels to both State (Department) and CIA, DIA, a few I cant name because there still not known except by a few. But I made my point clear and his Reagan's NSC at the time.

Christ, talk about rapidly becoming persona non grade... You think I pooped on a guys sandwich. Boy brother did I piss people off.

My argument was simple. If any nation but Iran had been the target of such weapons, we would have raised holy hell. We said nothing. The truth is if the Iranians were "taken out" no matter how, then we don't have to. I also know Iran is the best example since the wests dark ages how nasty a religious dictatorship can be. They have a country run by fanatical nut jobs, and thats the BEST I can say about them.

But our silence WAS wrong. We should have stepped up to the plate and say "sure we hate the government of Iran, its very hard not to so who wouldn't"? But such an atrocity cheapens those who stay silent. Worse when they do for "politics".

I only was "rehabilitated" (sounds like China right, don't laugh. Power wants to live whoever has it in there hot little hands) after and it only took two years I came up with some technology they wanted. Very badly. Also though offered more money then God could possibly print I never designed weapons. I'm not noble . Just love to be able to sleep at night. Why? Other people are so good at it and besides, I have more fun inventing stuff that won't kill or hurt anyone.

Oh, remember the movie The Hunt for Red October (good book, very so-so movie IMHO) Remember when in the movie "Ryan" was briefing the NSC staff? And a General patronized and insulted Ryan by saying: "Your only an analyst, what can you possibly know about this man" (Captain Ramous of the Typhoon* class Red October played also, so so by Shawn Connery?) Something like that happened to me when a certain high ranking person in NSC said to me: "Your just a technology geek, so-so business man (so-so? I know I was even worth then more moony then that ass) and sometimes analyst what the hell right do you have to say such a thing"?

I told him I a: had an IQ at least 70 points above his, (true) b: everything I've invented has made me millions(true) and c: my analysis has never been wrong once (far as I know, true, and if not I would have heard about it) and d: unlike you, I try not to be a total ass hole (that was obvious),(and since I wasn't official, in the black and off the books, who cares?) any f****** questions? He had none. That day I made an enemy and a little advice for my ATS friends, only if you make an idiot out of one with some power over you are you likely to make any enemies of consequence. Tough...

* nice boat, love the hot tub, and NO I'm not kidding!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The words 'toxic legacy' still fails to draw comprehension when compared to this view....

12160.info...

...that's the legacy of the brush-aside phrase "toxic legacy". Real human beings..living like this...having to bear this..while the rest of the world ' moves on'. Want o see more..just type "Fallujah babies" into any search engine...the ones above are tame by comparison to many.

Story behind many of the pics above here, including birth rate changes etc..
This link :
www.oneworldmanypeaces.com...


Ro
edit on 27-5-2012 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

Thanks friend.

However, the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations which is responsible for setting health research norms and standards, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.[11][12] This report has been criticized for not including possible long term effects of DU on the human body.

So I wonder if the WHO peeps would allow their children to frolic around such an environment?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 



You do understand that the us gave Iraq those chemical weapons right?

Do yo also know that the united states got the Kurds to rise up?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 

I just wonder how many ways we need to engineer to cause the harm or death of a person. Biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, projectile weapons, explosives, sonic weapons, microwave weapons...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

What could possibly be propoganda regarding Anti-war. You my friend should go play on the I-15.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 



I just wonder how many ways we need to engineer to cause the harm or death of a person. Biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, projectile weapons, explosives, sonic weapons, microwave weapons...

Guess it depends on how much money the manufacturers and investors want to make man, sad but true, the ugly side of growth and progress via the military industrial complex.

edit on 27-5-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Thanks for your account. I haven't checked in some time, but many years ago I took a look at the Google Earth pics of Fallujah and saw about half the city had been bulldozed and carted away. Am I mistaken? What I saw on the GE pics were outlines of street after street - an entire city grid - empty, with just sand and the imprint of past streets and lots on it. Did I see this accurately, was much of the city destroyed and taken away, leaving just sand in its place? Thanks for any comment on what you've seen or heard on this topic.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Thanks for your account. I haven't checked in some time, but many years ago I took a look at the Google Earth pics of Fallujah and saw about half the city had been bulldozed and carted away. Am I mistaken? What I saw on the GE pics were outlines of street after street - an entire city grid - empty, with just sand and the imprint of past streets and lots on it. Did I see this accurately, was much of the city destroyed and taken away, leaving just sand in its place? Thanks for any comment on what you've seen or heard on this topic.


You are correct. All of the destroyed buildings were demolished and carted away as rubble from what I know. It really used to be a beautifull city. 'Was once called the city of mosks' due to the very high number of minerets visible across the city. I'm not sure how far the rebuilding has come since I was there but I imagine the city is beginning to recover.
edit on 28/5/12 by usmc0311 because: poor spelling



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
At least Israel is safe.

That's the most important thing, right?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
wow do you hate america or something? this is necessary to ensure the continuity of the empire. i'm sure iraq would do it if the tables were turned.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by neformore
 


This is not the result of DU. This is a myth pushed by anti-war propagandists.



Are you serious? Maybe you should research what uranium mining in the U.S. has done to the people here! There are mothers that have given birth to malformed babies and have suffered miscarriages due to uranium mining on the Lakota and Navajo lands. And the people are still affected by this today. The cancer rates are even higher on Lakota lands since 2003. I have no doubts in my mind that the people over there in the middle east suffer the same thing.

serc.carleton.edu...
www.culturechange.org...
blog.indigenouspolicy.org...

Readings, 80 times over the allowable amount of uranium



YOUTH speaking out






Just a simple search on Natives and uranium will take you to many accounts and studies about this. How in the world can anyone claim that uranium is not hurting these people over in another country?
edit on 28-5-2012 by Thunder heart woman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 




Yes, but the April operation ended abruptly for political reasons. Your certainly right that every civilian did not get out as I saw firsthand but many who stayed were helping the insurgents as well. Not all but some. I definitely do not feel that our cause was just but at the time we were facing an enemy that was hell bent on killing us. We were ordered to be there and we did what we felt was nesassary for our survival. Given what I know now the whole war was a warcrime so you can take what you want from that.


In what ways did you see or find evidence of the Fallujah civilians helping the insurgents? Did you see them as legitimate targets because of this? What were the ROE set done by your commanding officer in relation to this?

I am not asking these questions in a confrontational way, genuinely interested in how you saw it as I just recently typed a paper on the different types of violences Iraqis found themselves at the mercy of following the invasion.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


I deal in facts known. Not unknowns. Gulf War Syndrome, in my personal opinion, has more to do with unrefined vaccinations against chemical agents feared to be used against US personnel than DU itself. DUs properties do NOT resemble the type symptoms suffered by those vets. They are not consistent with heavy metal poisoning which is what you would get with DU. While acute DU exposure can be pretty nasty, the aerosolized particles after a DU round has been fired do not remain in the air like a cloud. Many of the effects of DU poisoning is the same as lead poisoning. It is a heavy metal. I am not saying the stuff is SAFE, I am saying that it's concentrations, in order to cause what is being purported here, have to be MUCH higher, as in total saturation, to produce these effects long term. You would also have to ignore other conditions of warfare and similar effects in other war stricken regions to make the determination that it is solely this substance that is causing these problems. You can't do that and have an honest debate on this issue.

I am not saying that there is nothing to be discussed here. I am saying that if we're going to discuss this it would be in our favor to not exclude everything probable in favor of anything possible.

BTW I wear a uniform too.
edit on 27-5-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


I see you claim you deal in hard facts... well...

The metal is radioactive and that means it is a mutagen. Even small quantities of radioactive
material cause harm, The dangers of "hot particles." are well documented.
The ground zero areas of the atomic bomb sites have these hot particles.
Tourists go there all the time. Would you say these areas are safe for children to play in?
Are you saying because the DU is locked up in the ground that it does not come into human contact?

Depleted Uranium causes cancer in rodent models, it is a human carcinogen, so it's reasonable to assume
that these effects are caused by it.

Limbo



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Careful what you say. If you are still in , you do know you limited your Freedom of Speech when you signed the dotted line.

Even if the war was to secure Oil Assets. Oil is just as vital as fresh water to pretty much all nations.

Also , the US does not recognize international law.

---------------------------------

You should also know , we are around DU materials often and nothing happens , hell we even handle the materials and sit next to them for hours. Nothing.
edit on 28-5-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join