[disclaimer: First off, I want this thread to be about facts (i.e. don't post a reply unless you have a reference to point to, where applicable) and I want it to be about well-thought-out arguments of a philosophical nature... I'd really like to see one thread on this forum that stays away from pointless attacks on people's patriotism or character, or lack thereof...]
That said, here's my basic observation to get this started... I know it's long, but it's designed to get people to think and not simply lash out and spout propaganda...
Fact: Sept, 11, 2001... Hijackers take control of airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people and shocking and awing the rest of us from our sleep... I believe it is safe to say that everyone reading this would consider this to be an act of terrorism.
Hypothetical: A muslim/christian/zionist/white-supermacist (whatever) zealot, smuggles a suitcase nuclear device into downtown Los Angeles/London/Moscow/Tel Aviv (wherever) and detonates it in the name of his/her cause... Again, we would all consider this to be an act of terrorism, right?
Fact: During the first Gulf War, coalition forces dropped at least 300 tons of depleted uranium on the nation of Iraq:
source1: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.shtml For those who might immediately think it's a propaganda site, please note the .MIL extension.
source2: United Nations Coalition on Human Rights, Summary record of 482nd Meeting, 13 April, 1999.
Greenpeace places this number at 800 tons, and some estimates place this number at 2700 tons.
For those who do not know what depleted uranium is, check this site: http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm. That site explains that the United Nations Coalition on Human Rights has classified depleted Uranium (DU) as:
The 482nd Meeting of the United Nations Coalition on Human Rights found that:
The adverse health effects from DU weapons wer also felt by coalition veterans of the Gulf War, who were exposed to these weapons for a short time in comparison to the citizens of Iraq, who have lived in the remains of the DU weapons for the last decade:
A longterm study of the adverse health effects due to the use of DU weapons was proposed to the UN General Assembly by the nation of Iraq. In November, 2001, that proposed study was rejected "After lobbying by Washington" [see: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1130-01.htm.]
Now, that having been said, here is the basis for what I hope will bring out some thoughtful insights by anyone who chooses to take part...
If we can all agree that the act of flying airliners into the WTC is an act of terrorism, and the (hypothetical) detonation of a suitcase nuke in a major metro area would be an act of terrorism, why is the use of hundreds of tons of nuclear material which knows no enemy, rather, it afflicts and sickens all people equally, not classified as an act of terrorism? If the current war against Iraq has, as its purpose, the finding and elimination of weapons of mass destruction, Further, why is the use of DU by coalition forces not categorized as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Do you feel that if Iraq was in possession of depleted uranium weapons and the coalition was not, and used them against coalition forces, would they be charged with using weapons of mass destruction just because they're Iraq? For further discussion, I would like to see addressed this question: Is it only terrorism when they do it to us?
[disclaimer: Again, this thread isn't meant for people to engage in namecalling and lashing out... Let's have some thoughtful discussion here... please?]
/syf3r
That said, here's my basic observation to get this started... I know it's long, but it's designed to get people to think and not simply lash out and spout propaganda...
Fact: Sept, 11, 2001... Hijackers take control of airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people and shocking and awing the rest of us from our sleep... I believe it is safe to say that everyone reading this would consider this to be an act of terrorism.
Hypothetical: A muslim/christian/zionist/white-supermacist (whatever) zealot, smuggles a suitcase nuclear device into downtown Los Angeles/London/Moscow/Tel Aviv (wherever) and detonates it in the name of his/her cause... Again, we would all consider this to be an act of terrorism, right?
Fact: During the first Gulf War, coalition forces dropped at least 300 tons of depleted uranium on the nation of Iraq:
source1: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.shtml For those who might immediately think it's a propaganda site, please note the .MIL extension.
source2: United Nations Coalition on Human Rights, Summary record of 482nd Meeting, 13 April, 1999.
Greenpeace places this number at 800 tons, and some estimates place this number at 2700 tons.
For those who do not know what depleted uranium is, check this site: http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm. That site explains that the United Nations Coalition on Human Rights has classified depleted Uranium (DU) as:
In other words, the UN has classified DU to be a Weapon of Mass Destruction.alongside such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, napalm, and cluster bombs as a 'weapon of indiscriminate effect'
The 482nd Meeting of the United Nations Coalition on Human Rights found that:
The military aggression of 1991 had gravely impaired the rights of children, particularly their most fundamental right, namely, the right to life. The coalition forces, notably the American and British, had used depleted uranium-based munitions, which were prohibited throughout the world, and contravened the United Nations Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs had described their effects in a letter dated 1 July 1998 (A/53/165-S/1998/601) addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. A letter from the United Kingdom representative to the United Nations (S/1998/517) confirmed that those munitions had in fact been used. In June 1995, Le Monde diplomatique had published an article stating that the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington had estimated that the total amount of the uranium contained in the shells used in Iraq had been 300 tonnes. The Iraqi authorities had formed specialized units made up of doctors and researchers to conduct scientific and medical studies into the effects of such weapons. It had been found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious impact on health: the number of cases of leukaemia had increased considerably, as had the incidence of foetal deformities. Paragraph 23 of the report submitted by the Secretary-General to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities regarding peace and international security (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27) indicated, inter alia, that weapons containing depleted uranium had destructive effects which could not be measured, which lasted long after the end of a war, which caused needless suffering, and which damaged the environment. The soil, water and atmosphere remained unusable for generations. The Sub-Commission had also considered a document regarding the post-war environment in Iraq, contained in a note verbale from the Permanent Mission of Iraq (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/32), which revealed that numerous cases of cancer and miscarriage as well as other grave problems had emerged. [from this UN document.]
The adverse health effects from DU weapons wer also felt by coalition veterans of the Gulf War, who were exposed to these weapons for a short time in comparison to the citizens of Iraq, who have lived in the remains of the DU weapons for the last decade:
This has been refered to as Gulf War Syndrome by many.The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling. A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.
A longterm study of the adverse health effects due to the use of DU weapons was proposed to the UN General Assembly by the nation of Iraq. In November, 2001, that proposed study was rejected "After lobbying by Washington" [see: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1130-01.htm.]
Now, that having been said, here is the basis for what I hope will bring out some thoughtful insights by anyone who chooses to take part...
If we can all agree that the act of flying airliners into the WTC is an act of terrorism, and the (hypothetical) detonation of a suitcase nuke in a major metro area would be an act of terrorism, why is the use of hundreds of tons of nuclear material which knows no enemy, rather, it afflicts and sickens all people equally, not classified as an act of terrorism? If the current war against Iraq has, as its purpose, the finding and elimination of weapons of mass destruction, Further, why is the use of DU by coalition forces not categorized as a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Do you feel that if Iraq was in possession of depleted uranium weapons and the coalition was not, and used them against coalition forces, would they be charged with using weapons of mass destruction just because they're Iraq? For further discussion, I would like to see addressed this question: Is it only terrorism when they do it to us?
[disclaimer: Again, this thread isn't meant for people to engage in namecalling and lashing out... Let's have some thoughtful discussion here... please?]
/syf3r