The history of the atrocity committed by American imperialism against the people of Fallujah began on April 28, 2003, when US Army soldiers fired indiscriminately into a crowd of about 200 residents protesting the conversion of a local school into a US military base. Seventeen were killed in the unprovoked attack, and two days later American soldiers fired on a protest against the murders, killing two more.
This intensified popular anger, and Fallujah became a center of the Sunni resistance against the occupation—and US reprisals. On March 31, 2004, an angry crowd stopped a convoy of the private security firm Blackwater USA, responsible for its own share of war crimes. Four Blackwater mercenaries were dragged from their vehicles, beaten, burned, and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
The US military then promised it would pacify the city, with one unnamed officer saying it would be turned into “a killing field,” but Operation Vigilant Resolve, involving thousands of Marines, ended in the abandonment of the siege by the US military in May, 2004. The victory of Fallujah’s residents against overwhelming military superiority was celebrated throughout Iraq and watched all over the world.
The Pentagon delivered its response in November 2004. The city was surrounded, and all those left inside were declared to be enemy combatants and fair game for the most heavily equipped killing machine in world history. The Associated Press reported that men attempting to flee the city with their families were turned back into the slaughterhouse.
In the attack, the US made heavy use of the chemical agent white phosphorus. Ostensibly used only for illuminating battlefields, white phosphorus causes terrible and often fatal wounds, burning its way through building material and clothing before eating away skin and then bone. The chemical was also used to suck the oxygen out of buildings where civilians were hiding.
Washington’s desire for revenge against the population is indicated by the fact that the US military reported about the same number of “gunmen” killed (1,400) as those taken alive as prisoners (1,300-1,500). In one instance, NBC News captured video footage of a US soldier executing a wounded and helpless Iraqi man. A Navy investigation later found the Marine had been acting in self-defense.
Fifty-one US soldiers died in 10 days of combat. The true number of city residents who were killed is not known. The city’s population before the attack was estimated to be between 425,000 and 600,000. The current population is believed to be between 250,000 and 300,000. Tens of thousands, mostly women and children, fled in advance of the attack. Half of the city’s building were destroyed, most of these reduced to rubble.
Like much of Iraq, Fallujah remains in ruins. According to a recent report from IRIN, a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Fallujah still has no functioning sewage system six years after the attack. “Waste pours onto the streets and seeps into drinking water supplies,” the report notes. “Abdul-Sattar Kadhum al-Nawaf, director of Fallujah general hospital, said the sewage problem had taken its toll on residents’ health. They were increasingly affected by diarrhea, tuberculosis, typhoid and other communicable diseases.”
The savagery of the US assault shocked the world, and added the name Fallujah to an infamous list that includes My Lai, Sabra-Shatila, Guérnica, Nanking, Lidice, and Wounded Knee.
But unlike those other massacres, the crime against Fallujah did not end when the bullets were no longer fired or the bombs stopped falling.
The US military’s decision to heavily deploy depleted uranium, all but proven by “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah,” was a wanton act of brutality, poisoning an entire generation of children not yet born in 2004.
Originally posted by LifehouseExcept for your last sentence there is no mention of DU in all of that copy-paste, and that last sentence simply makes the accusation again. Yes, I was aware the United States military violently pacified Fallujah. What I am suspicious of is the accusation that the USA used DU munitions.
The history of the atrocity committed by American imperialism against the people of Fallujah began on April 28, 2003, when US Army soldiers fired indiscriminately into a crowd of about 200 residents protesting the conversion of a local school into a US military base. Seventeen were killed in the unprovoked attack, and two days later American soldiers fired ...[text shortened]... was a wanton act of brutality, poisoning an entire generation of children not yet born in 2004.
Here's the full text of the report your copy-paste mentions at the end:
http://www.countercurrents.org/ariabi110710.htm
"the results reported do not shed any light on the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased level of illness"
It also seems that this report is based on nothing more than surveys...asking people questions. I doubt the common folk in Fallujah are capable of distinguishing DU munitions from other kinds of death spewed out of the end of a cannon.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo you are correct. Babies are born in Fallujah with two heads and one eye in their foreheads because America built some schools.
Except for your last sentence there is no mention of DU in all of that copy-paste, and that last sentence simply makes the accusation again. Yes, I was aware the United States military violently pacified Fallujah. What I am suspicious of is the accusation that the USA used DU munitions.
Here's the full text of the report your copy-paste mentions at the end:
http://www.countercurrents.org/ariabi110710.htm
Originally posted by LifehouseYou're too biased to address this topic critically. I didn't say the US didn't cause these illnesses. I am specifically asking about DU weapons. Maybe they used some other carcinogenic munition.
No you are correct. Babies are born in Fallujah with two heads and one eye in their foreheads because America built some schools.
Originally posted by BrainevolutionBut Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs
But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs
Depleted Uranium in bombs?! I've never heard of such a thing. It makes no sense. DU is used because of it's incredible density, which makes it fantastic for making armor and for punching holes in armor when fired at high velocity from a cannon. It's pretty much useless otherwise. There's no reason to put it in bombs and especially no reason for putting it in high explosive munitions like bombs used for blowing up cities and killing infantry.
The evidence of cancer may be solid, but this copy-paste seems to be hardcore anti-war propaganda for the most part. I see absolutely no reason to blame the US for using DU munitions in Fallujah.
EDIT
The only thing I can think of to explain this is that Abrams customarily keep a DU penetrator in the cannon for the first shot, in case they run into a tank. However I have a hard time believing the Army kept with this doctrine when they knew there were no hostile tanks in the city. They needed the armor and the big booms, not the armor piercing spike.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe have the means, the motive and the perfect timming of the dead carcus.
[b]But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs
Depleted Uranium in bombs?! I've never heard of such a thing. It makes no sense. DU is used because of it's incredible density, which makes it fantastic for making armor and for punching holes in armor when fired e most part. I see absolutely no reason to blame the US for using DU munitions in Fallujah.[/b]
Abstract: There have been anecdotal reports of increases in birth defects and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq blamed on the use of novel weapons (possibly including depleted uranium) in heavy fighting which occurred in that town between US led forces and local elements in 2004. In Jan/Feb 2010 the authors organised a team of researchers who visited 711 houses in Fallujah, Iraq and obtained responses to a questionnaire in Arabic on cancer, birth defects and infant mortality. The total population in the resulting sample was 4,843 persons with and overall response rate was better than 60%. Relative Risks for cancer were age-standardised and compared to rates in the Middle East Cancer Registry (MECC, Garbiah Egypt) for 1999 and rates in Jordan 1996–2001. Between Jan 2005 and the survey end date there were 62 cases of cancer malignancy reported (RR = 4.22; CI: 2.8, 6.6; p < 0.00000001) including 16 cases of childhood cancer 0-14 (RR = 12.6; CI: 4.9, 32; p < 0.00000001). Highest risks were found in all-leukaemia in the age groups 0-34 (20 cases RR = 38.5; CI: 19.2, 77; p < 0.00000001), all lymphoma 0–34 (8 cases, RR = 9.24;CI: 4.12, 20.8; p < 0.00000001), female breast cancer 0–44 (12 cases RR = 9.7;CI: 3.6, 25.6; p < 0.00000001) and brain tumours all ages (4 cases, RR = 7.4;CI: 2.4, 23.1; P < 0.004). Infant mortality was based on the mean birth rate over the 4 year period 2006–2009 with 1/6th added for cases reported in January and February 2010. There were 34 deaths in the age group 0–1 in this period giving a rate of 80 deaths per 1,000 births. This may be compared with a rate of 19.8 in Egypt (RR = 4.2 p < 0.00001) 17 in Jordan in 2008 and 9.7 in Kuwait in 2008. The mean birth sex-ratio in the recent 5-year cohort was anomalous. Normally the sex ratio in human populations is a constant with 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls. This is disturbed if there is a genetic damage stress. The ratio of boys to 1,000 girls in the 0–4, 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19 age cohorts in the Fallujah sample were 860, 1,182, 1,108 and 1,010 respectively suggesting genetic damage to the 0–4 group (p < 0.01). Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively.
I'm not sure of what to make of cluster pools like this even if 80 deaths is far higher then the other highest 19.7. There is a reason why Iraq held the highest increasing death rate for under 5 years old in the world and Im pretty sure....
Originally posted by LifehousePretty explosions. There are no DU rounds being fired in that clip though. (They look like Star Wars blaster projectiles from what I've seen and they don't blow things up...just punch holes in things).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Y223NWR_8&feature=related
I like these ones (might be some "bad" words):
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOnes we like huh. Well those ones you posted are gay. I prefer one's like this.
Pretty explosions. There are no DU rounds being fired in that clip though. (They look like Star Wars blaster projectiles from what I've seen and they don't blow things up...just punch holes in things).
I like these ones (might be some "bad" words):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxhuy-GS28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfECxO1fkxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHvF8L9ulqA
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy does the Wikipedia page suggest that a large quantity of us munitions contain depleted uranium and that over 1000 tons of depleted uranium was used in the war. Were there really that many tanks to shoot at, or are they in fact used for buildings and other targets as well?
The only thing I can think of to explain this is that Abrams customarily keep a DU penetrator in the cannon for the first shot, in case they run into a tank. However I have a hard time believing the Army kept with this doctrine when they knew there were no hostile tanks in the city. They needed the armor and the big booms, not the armor piercing spike.