Dickie. "The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets during Operation Enduring Freedom."
"It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research."

Now let me see if I've got this right. You are saying that the bombing caused signatures of enriched uranium to be found in peoples blood in Afganistan. Hmmm....

Strange. I wonder how it got there. Aerial bombs don't use depleated uranium or any sort of radioactive substance. Anti-Tank rounds fired by Tanks do. The projectile in a discarding sabot has a depleated uranium component. It's about 450mm long by about 25mm diameter projectile inside a 105mm discarding Sabot. Not all tank rounds are Discarding Sabot. They are only used against heavy amoured modern tanks, as in Iraq. For soft targets they just use HE. Using expensive DS rounds on a 4x4 with a mounted 20mm anti aircraft weapon would get any Tank Commanders butt kicked seriously. Besides, they are better trained than that. I havent heard of any Yank heavy tanks in Afganistan anyway. Bradleys, etc.....yes, armed with a 25mm cannon, not capable of firing DU amunition.

Dickie, know your subject before getting in over your head & believing some distorted yank hating propaganda.

If there were uranium traces there, maybe the Russians? They had heavy tanks when they were there. Certainly not the Yanks or Brits from aerial bombing.

Jayb

You may not believe that DU was used in Afghanistan by the US, however, it is established that the coalition used DU in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Why not Afghanistan?

And those who challenge the US military often find themselves unemployed as did the following authority on DU.

Dear President Clinton:

"I am bringing to your attention the conspiracy against the Veterans of the United States.

"In the Persian Gulf War some veterans were exposed to radioactive contamination with Depleted Uranium. I personally served in the Operation Desert Shield as a Unit Commander of 531 Army Medical Detachment. After the war I was in charge of Nuclear Medicine Service at Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wilmington, Delaware.

"A group of uranium contaminated US Veterans were referred to my attention as an expert in nuclear contamination. I properly referred them for the diagnostic tests to different Institutions dealing with transuranium elements.

"All of the records have been lost in this Hospital and in referring Institutions. Only a small part of information was recorded in Presidential Advisory Committee report on Gulf War Illnesses.

"Recently I received an order by the Chief of Staff of this Institution to start the veterans examinations again since all of the records have been lost.

"Today I was informed in writing that my job was terminated as a reduction in force. I have been at this position for over eight years with an outstanding job performance and I am convinced with certainty that my elimination from the job is a direct result of my involvement in the management of Gulf War Veterans and discrimination for raising nuclear safety issues.

"The lost records, lost laboratory specimens and retaliations which are well documented point to no less than conspiracy to terminate my efforts of proper management of Gulf War Veterans. I am sure that you will have an interest in this matter for the benefit of the veterans of The United States of America."

Most respectfully

Asaf Durakovic
Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Chief, Nuclear Medicine Service, VAMC Wilmington
Colonel, U.S. Army Medical Corps (R)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-afghanistan2.html

Jayb>"Dickie, know your subject before getting in over your head & believing some distorted yank hating propaganda."

Stop dismissing criticism as yank-hating. It really shows you up as I indicated before: A sympathiser or appeaser, so to speak.

It is 100% fact that American forces are all equipped with DU in their armour and their munitions. I personally am not sure what the effects are, but if Vietnam is any indication and guide, they are going to be criminal.

Paul L. and Jayb, I'm not going to continue with this, because you two are both intellectually dishonest. It is clear that you will not engage in a reasoned debate on the subject, preferring to rave on with half-baked defences that all ultimately come down to "they're not us, so it doesn't matter if we kill them". Of course, that's precisely the justification that the terrorists use as well. Congratulations.

Jayb, a few posts back you asked me a question regarding my views on terrorists being charged with crimes against humanity. I answered and then asked you a question in return. To date, you've been too gutless to answer that question. As for my handle, I chose it for reasons of my own. What you make of it is your problem. However, as steel has said, it's interesting that what you make of it comes across as toadying to the "master" of the moment. Oh, that's right, the US is "us", so is above critique in your world. At least you're consistent.

Paul L., I realise you're a dyed-in-the-wool pro-Zionist, so I understand your motivations for regurgitating the propaganda, I just wish you'd try to apply a little thought to it. Watching your contortions and strawmen-manufacture is tiring, when you could so easily apply your obvious intellect to genuine critical thought. I'm sure you do in other aspects of your life and I wish you would here.

Steel,

>> “You ... keep ignoring everything that has shown about the murder of civilians … using the same old fallacies.

I specifically asked you if you had evidence that Coalition forces are deliberately killing civilians in Afghanistan. You said NO. So how is it you continue to repeat these claims? You clearly don’t understand the definition of the term “Murder”. It requires that the killing was intended. That’s what makes accidents different to murders.

>> ” Let me repeat ... The "Human Shield" argument is a fallacy. ”

What ?? Which human shield argument is a fallacy? That the Taliban/AlQaeda have forced families to stay in their homes to give cover and not alert coalition forces. You just don’t have a clue do you. See “House to House”, by David Belavia or “3 Para” by Patrick Bishop for accounts of AlQaeda using civilians for cover. IT IS NOT A FALLACY.

ISAF has denied they are responsible for the incident which you have made such mileage from. And they are NOT in the habit of denying their accidents if you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

You say >> “Civilian wounded and dead are always presented as Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists …”

How the f@ck do you know? I have friends who have been there. Where is your evidence that these dead militants are civilians. You just live in this shut-in world, reading your “alternative media” and you have no idea what goes on in the real world.

This quote below shows just how biased you are.

I say >"Furthermore, victims of the Taliban/Al-Qaida are also attributed to the Coalition." You say >> “And from a particular perspective that remains true … people would not be lying in mass graves as they are now …”

You’re saying the people killed by the Taliban/Al-Qaida are the Coalition’s fault.

You really are unbelievable.

Steel >> “However … you are questioning an Australian”

Antiseptic absolutely means anti-US. BTW, Don’t pretend you are remotely patriotic. The Coalition is us. The US, Australia, Britain etc. WE are there, fighting and dying.

Antiseptic

You say >> “I'm not going to continue with this, because you two are both intellectually dishonest.”

Coming from someone who pretends that antiseptic doesn’t mean anti US I am frankly ROFLMAO. Point out for me just ONE place where I have been intellectually dishonest and I will debate it with you.

>> “preferring to rave on with half-baked defences that all ultimately come down to "they're not us, so it doesn't matter if we kill them".

Show me ONE place where I have suggested ANYTHING like that. This is the ultimate smokescreen of someone who realizes they don’t have the ability to attack my argument head on. Pure fallacy, I challenge you to prove it.

This is my position. I will state it clearly and simply.

I do not believe that the Coalition forces are engaged in killing civilians either deliberately or wantonly. I cannot pretend that every single Coalition trooper abides by this policy, nowhere is it possible to have hundreds of thousands of people doing exactly the right thing everytime. There are bad apples, they should be punished. But 99.9% of the time our forces obey their rules of engagement, which protect civilians.

You have NOT shown, anywhere, that our forces regularly, deliberately and avoidably kill civilians. You have not acknowledged that it is not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties, even when you do everything you can to avoid them, as we do.

You have not acknowledged that far fewer civilians have become casualties as a proportion of total casualties in Afghanistan, than in WW1 and WW2, (your so called honourable wars), even though the German Army never hid behind the civilian population.

I’m not averse to criticism of Coalition actions, I just can’t stand the hypocricy of those who won’t declare their agenda, and who won’t acknowledge the depravity of those we fight.

>> “Watching your contortions and strawmen-manufacture is tiring …”

Straw men are easy to expose and I wonder why you do not mention them? It’s because I haven’t used any.

TBC