Syria

[tonyh29]

New chemical weapon plant discovered in the Middle East! Negev desert.

Oh, sorry, it's Israeli. Better pretend it doesn't exist, then.

Tut Tut Peter .... Trying to suggest they've been "discovered" recently with the place and the stock pile being known about by the CIA etc as long ago as as 1982

Or is 31 years still deemed to be "new" in Middle East history terms

Edited September 15, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

Or is 31 years still deemed to be "new" in Middle East history terms

A fleeting instant, in Middle East terms, yes.

[Xann]

Probably Putin fancies a Nobel peace prize figuring if Obama can have one anyone can have one

 

He's like Ghandi, but at the same time, Chuck Norris.

 

[Awol]

Oh dear.  In the middle of the quite justified moral outrage over what's been happening in Syria, it seems that publicity about other very similar instances of illegal chemical warfare is being suppressed.

 

Can such a thing happen in the free world, or would it only happen in secretive commie dictatorships?  No, it seems to be happening in the country that is both the leader of the free world, and the world's policeman.  Well, colour me shocked.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-refuses-to-publish-report-on-cancers-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-caused-by-depleted-uranium-ammunition/5349556

I'm sorry to be anal about this issue but a chemical weapon is something that's only purpose is to use a manufactured poison to cause casualties. So when a rocket or shell full of Sarin is fired at a target the munition is only a delivery vehicle for the chemical substance, enabling the contents to cause casualties instantly.

 

A tank shell containing DU is not a delivery vehicle to poison people, it is designed solely to blow things up - specifically armoured vehicles.

 

I'm not disputing that the residue of DU left over an area when said vehicle explodes is toxic or that it doesn't have long term ill affects, clearly it does, but you don't fire a DU shell to instantly poison people, that regrettable effect is a legacy of its use and not its purpose.

 

Therefore DU is NOT a chemical weapon, i.e. something designed to cause immediate casualties by poisoning.

 

Whether it should be banned because of it's legacy effect is another debate, however it was designed at time when an out-gunned and out-manned NATO alliance needed something short of nuclear weapons to stop any attempt by a Soviet steamroller to squash Western Europe. In the context of potential mushroom clouds DU was a far less radical solution.

[peterms]

 

Oh dear.  In the middle of the quite justified moral outrage over what's been happening in Syria, it seems that publicity about other very similar instances of illegal chemical warfare is being suppressed.

 

Can such a thing happen in the free world, or would it only happen in secretive commie dictatorships?  No, it seems to be happening in the country that is both the leader of the free world, and the world's policeman.  Well, colour me shocked.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-refuses-to-publish-report-on-cancers-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-caused-by-depleted-uranium-ammunition/5349556

I'm sorry to be anal about this issue but a chemical weapon is something that's only purpose is to use a manufactured poison to cause casualties. So when a rocket or shell full of Sarin is fired at a target the munition is only a delivery vehicle for the chemical substance, enabling the contents to cause casualties instantly.

 

A tank shell containing DU is not a delivery vehicle to poison people, it is designed solely to blow things up - specifically armoured vehicles.

 

I'm not disputing that the residue of DU left over an area when said vehicle explodes is toxic or that it doesn't have long term ill affects, clearly it does, but you don't fire a DU shell to instantly poison people, that regrettable effect is a legacy of its use and not its purpose.

 

Therefore DU is NOT a chemical weapon, i.e. something designed to cause immediate casualties by poisoning.

 

Whether it should be banned because of it's legacy effect is another debate, however it was designed at time when an out-gunned and out-manned NATO alliance needed something short of nuclear weapons to stop any attempt by a Soviet steamroller to squash Western Europe. In the context of potential mushroom clouds DU was a far less radical solution.

 

 

Yes, I'm aware that the powers that be don't classify DU as a chemical weapon.  Their line is that it's toxic chemicals, it was delivered as a weapon, but the chemicals which are now killing people were not intended as the cause of death at the moment of delivery, death was meant to be by means of shrapnel or shock waves or something else, so that's all right, it's not actually a chemical weapon.

 

Two things on this.  First, as I think you recognise with your mention of it being a bit anal, it's not much help to the people now being killed by toxic chemicals that they were meant to have been killed a few years earlier by non-chemical means.  I don't think they would find that a helpful clarification.

 

Second, that actually makes it worse.  The cause of these deaths doesn't even have the figleaf of "military necessity".  It's simply that the US (and us?  Did we shell civilians in Fallujah with DU?) can't be arsed to clean up the toxic residue of their own weapons, and they are content to see mutant babies with cancerous growths, long after the end of the conflict, and in an area which by invading they acquired legal responsibilities for.  I don't think the words exist to express the depth of my despair at and contempt for the moral poverty of this approach.

[Awol]

 

Yes, I'm aware that the powers that be don't classify DU as a chemical weapon.  Their line is that it's toxic chemicals, it was delivered as a weapon, but the chemicals which are now killing people were not intended as the cause of death at the moment of delivery, death was meant to be by means of shrapnel or shock waves or something else, so that's all right, it's not actually a chemical weapon.

 

Two things on this.  First, as I think you recognise with your mention of it being a bit anal, it's not much help to the people now being killed by toxic chemicals that they were meant to have been killed a few years earlier by non-chemical means.  I don't think they would find that a helpful clarification.

First, I agree that it is not much help to people dying now as a result of the use of DU munitions, although it is disingenuous to claim they were meant to be killed at some earlier point. However much I disagreed with the Iraq war its objective was not to kill civilians.

 

 

Second, that actually makes it worse.  The cause of these deaths doesn't even have the figleaf of "military necessity".  It's simply that the US (and us?  Did we shell civilians in Fallujah with DU?) can't be arsed to clean up the toxic residue of their own weapons, and they are content to see mutant babies with cancerous growths, long after the end of the conflict, and in an area which by invading they acquired legal responsibilities for.  I don't think the words exist to express the depth of my despair at and contempt for the moral poverty of this approach.

No the UK was not involved in the battle for Fallujhah. No one was shelled with DU during the battle either. Shelled means artillery, DU is delivered as an anti armour round directly into a target via line of sight. It doesn't explode, it's density is used to penetrate armour at high velocity and ignite flammable materials within - hence being spread around the immediate area. 

 

Should it have been used in an urban area? From the comfort of my chair today, I'd say no. From the perspective of a grunt back then who was trying to clear the place, or a commander trying to preserve the lives of his men in the middle of a savage battle, I'd probably be using every tool available to get the job done. 

 

Should it have been removed afterwards? Yes. Were the various Iraqi insurgent groups going to allow western forces to conduct a spot of area cleaning? No.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Awol

[blandy]

The thing with DU shells in Fallujah, is there weren’t any tanks (other than US tanks) in the place. The DU shells the fired, and the white phosphorous shells they fired were used not in their intended purpose, but as weapons against people.

 

It’s not even a case of they were used to illuminate the field, or to destroy tanks and then there were other consequential casualties, but that they were misused to deliberately cause casualties.

 

It was despicable.

[peterms]

First, I agree that it is not much help to people dying now as a result of the use of DU munitions, although it is disingenuous to claim they were meant to be killed at some earlier point. However much I disagreed with the Iraq war its objective was not to kill civilians.

 

The objective of Fallujah, rather than the Iraq war as a whole, was to devastate the place and kill as many as possible. A distinction between civilians and presumed combatants was made when checking people leaving the town. No such distinctions were made in the attack on the town.

 

No the UK was not involved in the battle for Fallujhah.

We were involved, and some of our people were killed or sustained injuries. The Black Watch, the SBS, and the RAF were all involved. What I'm not clear about is whether we also used chemical weapons (or not-chemical-weapons, if you prefer).

 

No one was shelled with DU during the battle either. Shelled means artillery, DU is delivered as an anti armour round directly into a target via line of sight. It doesn't explode, it's density is used to penetrate armour at high velocity and ignite flammable materials within - hence being spread around the immediate area. 

 

Should it have been used in an urban area? From the comfort of my chair today, I'd say no. From the perspective of a grunt back then who was trying to clear the place, or a commander trying to preserve the lives of his men in the middle of a savage battle, I'd probably be using every tool available to get the job done.

The use of some weapons is not allowed under international law. That is the whole point of the case being made against Syria. Whether the grunts in action might prefer to use them or not is wholly irrelevant. It's not their decision, nor should it be. That is the whole point.

 

Should it have been removed afterwards? Yes. Were the various Iraqi insurgent groups going to allow western forces to conduct a spot of area cleaning? No.

In Bhopal, there are no insurgent groups, no unrest, just a lot of people being mutated by chemical debris from an industrial accident at a US-owned factory. The reason it's not being cleared up is that the firm don't want to spend the money and the US won't make them, because they don't give a flying **** about poor brown people dying from their spillage. I don't for a moment accept that the US is keen to clear up this poison in Iraq, and is only being prevented from doing so because insurgents are preventing them. They just can't be bothered.

[Awol]

 

First, I agree that it is not much help to people dying now as a result of the use of DU munitions, although it is disingenuous to claim they were meant to be killed at some earlier point. However much I disagreed with the Iraq war its objective was not to kill civilians.

 

The objective of Fallujah, rather than the Iraq war as a whole, was to devastate the place and kill as many as possible. A distinction between civilians and presumed combatants was made when checking people leaving the town. No such distinctions were made in the attack on the town.

 

No the UK was not involved in the battle for Fallujhah.

We were involved, and some of our people were killed or sustained injuries. The Black Watch, the SBS, and the RAF were all involved. What I'm not clear about is whether we also used chemical weapons (or not-chemical-weapons, if you prefer).

The Black Watch were deployed to Camp Dogwood south east of Falljuah, they did not participate in the battle, they relieved a US unit stationed there and enabled them to do so.  SBS may have been involved, be genuinely interested to know where that info comes from because by that point the SBS were all supposed to be working the Afghan theatre leaving Iraq to the SAS...  Similarly the RAF may have been flying sorties and that could have been recce, CASEVAC, air to ground, I don't know. Do you? The answer to your question however is no, UK didn't use DU in Fallujah. Regular UK troops weren't there on the ground, SF don't use weapons that fire DU and neither do the RAF to my knowledge - although standing by to be corrected.

The use of some weapons is not allowed under international law. That is the whole point of the case being made against Syria. Whether the grunts in action might prefer to use them or not is wholly irrelevant. It's not their decision, nor should it be. That is the whole point.

DU is not outlawed though and you correctly state it is not the decision of soldier X as to whether it is employed or not. It's not like a bunch of squaddies suddenly say, "stuff this, I was saving these DU shells for something special but I might just fire a few off for the crack..."

 

In Bhopal, there are no insurgent groups, no unrest, just a lot of people being mutated by chemical debris from an industrial accident at a US-owned factory. The reason it's not being cleared up is that the firm don't want to spend the money and the US won't make them, because they don't give a flying **** about poor brown people dying from their spillage. I don't for a moment accept that the US is keen to clear up this poison in Iraq, and is only being prevented from doing so because insurgents are preventing them. They just can't be bothered.

Sorry, are we talking about Iraq, India or just implying that Americans are racist? I'm getting a little confused.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

The Black Watch were deployed to Camp Dogwood south east of Falljuah, they did not participate in the battle, they relieved a US unit stationed there and enabled them to do so.  SBS may have been involved, be genuinely interested to know where that info comes from...

From Wikipedia, of course. That's where I get all my information about military matters - I thought you knew that?

Here. It says the dead and wounded were from the Black Watch.  The bit about the SBS is however not referenced, I suppose unsurprisingly.

 

Sorry, are we talking about Iraq, India or just implying that Americans are racist? I'm getting a little confused.

I'm saying the line that the US would have cleared up the poisonous mess they left in Iraq if only there were no insurgents is rather undermined by their failure to clear up the poisonous mess one of their firms left in Bhopal.  It seems to me that the continuing deaths and mutations in both places is simply a matter of no concern and no importance for the US.  Compare that to the line taken on the oil spillage by BP which harmed the livelihoods of US fishermen, but had no remotely similarly serious health implications for people.  I believe they just don't care about the victims of either Bhopal or Fallujah, and the line about insurgents is no more than a weak excuse.

[Electric Avenue]

How have Israel had it carte Blanche since 1945.

[Xann]

Let's relocate Israel - to Detroit.

 

It works on so many levels.

[tonyh29]

Let's relocate Israel - to Detroit.

It works on so many levels.

I'm sure I read that one of the initial plans was to give a bit of East Africa over as the new homeland for Israel... Uganda possibly ?

[Chindie]

Let's relocate Israel - to Detroit.

It works on so many levels.

I'm sure I read that one of the initial plans was to give a bit of East Africa over as the new homeland for Israel... Uganda possibly ?

Madagascar.

[Awol]

 

The Black Watch were deployed to Camp Dogwood south east of Falljuah, they did not participate in the battle, they relieved a US unit stationed there and enabled them to do so.  SBS may have been involved, be genuinely interested to know where that info comes from...

From Wikipedia, of course. That's where I get all my information about military matters - I thought you knew that?

Here. It says the dead and wounded were from the Black Watch.  The bit about the SBS is however not referenced, I suppose unsurprisingly.

 

The Black Watch losses were from a suicide bomber at a Vehicle Check Point, not in Fallujah. Their job was to act as a blocking force and intercept any insurgents who had fled the city. Trust me, they were not in Fallujah and took no part in the battle for the city.

 

As to whether the presence of insurgents is a weak excuse for not clearing the area afterwards or not, it doesn't change the fact that the security situation was never stable enough to allow the US to do it. That point is not in doubt and therefore hypotheticals about whether they would or would not have done it if given the opportunity are moot.

 

Having had a dig around on line I can't find any conclusive evidence that residual DU is responsible for the birth defects occurring today.  I'm not disputing that they happen, just interested in seeing the evidence, if there is any? (PM would be great if you could, just to try and get this back on topic). 

[peterms]

Having had a dig around on line I can't find any conclusive evidence that residual DU is responsible for the birth defects occurring today.  I'm not disputing that they happen, just interested in seeing the evidence, if there is any? (PM would be great if you could, just to try and get this back on topic).

 

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105557.htm

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/whos-iraq-birth-defect-study-omits-causation/

 

There are many, many similar pieces out there.  A search for "depleted uranium" +"birth defects" gives 155,000 results.  https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22depleted+uranium%22+%2B%22birth+defects%22+&safe=off

 

One theme which emerges is that research reports get delayed, or don't focus on causation.  It seems that some people think that trying to suppress the evidence will work.

[peterms]

Double post.

Edited September 15, 2013 by peterms

[peterms]

There's an interesting report here. It quotes local people from the area where the chemical weapons were released, including direct quotes from the named father of a dead rebel, saying the CWs were in the possession of the rebels, who didn't know what they were, and set them off by mistake.

The more senior of the two journos bylined in that piece has said she didn't contribute, it was written by the other one, and Mint Press have so far failed to comply with requests to issue a correction about authorship.  Seems an odd thing to do.

[Awol]

Well after calling for the UN weapons inspectors report the Russians clearly felt it was too uncomfortable for Assad and decided it was "biased". 

 

That doesn't seem odd, given their determination to support his regime no matter what it does. Still Obama has his 'out' now that they have agreed to surrender the 1000+ tons of chemical weapons held by the regime, which they have 12 months to sort out... Quite how that will be achieved in the middle of a civil war is another question, but El Presidente was running away from his red line so fast that I'm not sure he heard it.

[maqroll]

That Kerry slip of the tongue ended up being their best move now that the dust has cleared a bit. This administration is comical, all the more so with Kerry leading the charge.