October 13, 2009
Afghanistan, October 13, 2009, (Pal Telegraph) - We have heard so many times the lies associated with what weapons have or have not been used in all the theatres of war. It is only when independent experts reveal the evidence that the respective authorities back down and admit to their usage.
One can almost guarantee that soon after this these authorities play down how much they actually used. In the Balkans for instance the US said that it had only used DU rounds that were fired from US A10 aircraft. The truth is that vast arrays of weapons containing uranium components were used.
We have since observed many headlines that keep raising the same old questions such as:
Depleted uranium munitions use in Afghanistan unclear
Council of European Union: No DU was used in Afghanistan
Depleted uranium warheads found in Afghanistan
Already we can see from the above that its starts with uncertainty which then moves into a denial phase followed by the crunch when they find such weapons. Once it is realised that information has now entered the public area they bring in their expert PR teams to smooth things over and play down its usage.
One can see that this same format applied to the Balkans, Kuwait and Iraq when they denied its usage and then did a 180 degree turnaround. Lebanon and Gaza have been tested and samples reveal that yet again they are spreading their nuclear waste in the far corners of the earth but to date say nothing.
Now we patiently wait for confirmation from our illustrious US, UK and NATO forces that they do use weapons containing uranium components in Afghanistan. Experts that have visited the region confirm that this is the case so how long do we have to wait for their acceptance or will they continue to tell more lies. I myself have sufficient evidence to prove the use of DU but one can live in hope that the military will eventually come clean...........it certainly doesn't look like they will, so I will release my evidence in Part 2 of this story.
So where do we stand at the moment and how long will it take for all these authorities to accept the independent experts advice that the inhalation of such aerosols his extremely dangerous to humans. In relation to the usage of uranium products in the seven areas of past and current conflict (Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza and Pakistan) the first three have been confirmed, I will confirm Afghanistan in the next article and that leaves just three to go. The three remaining areas are showing clear evidenced of increase levels of cancer and birth defects and follows the same pattern as the other four. This trend yet again proves that it is the weapons being used that are causing the problem. When will this act of evil end and this progressive slow genocide stop.
It was so interest back in December 2001 when Rumsfeld accidently revealed that DU warheads had been found in Afghanistan. The interview started like this:
Rumsfeld: "There was a report on radiation in one. It turned out to be depleted uranium warheads"
Bowman: "You found depleted uranium warheads in the location"?
Rumsfeld: "In a location"
Rumsfeld: "It turned out to be depleted uranium"
Bowman: "Small arms or warheads or - "
Rumsfeld: "Typical, I suppose, artillery"
He clearly pointed a finger at the Taliban but doesn't he realise that they have no sophisticated weaponry or means to launch them? Doesn't he understand that the Taliban are primarily foot soldiers who carry only automatic weapons and RPG's? This was Rumsfeld's own ploy to divert attention from the US and the heavy carpet bombing that had taken place.
Ever since this time the US, UK NATO and the Council of the European Union have said clearly that no DU was used in Afghanistan. However, after some research by independent experts medical evidence has revealed the opposite.
This is a part transcript of an EU meeting:
European Parliament - Report of Proceedings
TUESDAY 9 APRIL 2002 Defence / armaments [DU in Afghanistan]
The following was stated by Lannoye: Mr President, Today, even if no official information confirms it, of many elements accredit the thesis according to which a great part of the massively bombarded Afghan territory was contaminated by depleted uranium: Declaration of State Rumsfeld evoking a contaminated site, concerns expressed by scientists Pakistani and especially confirmation of the use of bombs radio-controlled with very dense metal penetrants (penetrator warheads), probably of depleted uranium.
According to our information, the PNUE [UNEP] should start, in the next weeks, a study relating to the environmental impact of the war. Questions remain however that I would like to pose with the Council: does the Council plan to take particular measures to protect the humane troops [aid teams?] and missions on the ground, in Afghanistan? What thinks the Council of the long-term use of this type of ammunition and weapons, knowing that they are weapons for purpose indiscriminé [of indiscriminate effect] concerning at the same time the civilian populations and the soldiers?
The response came from Trillo-Figueroa, Consejo. - Sir President, In the first place, I must say to him that our information do not agree with which it has handled its Senoria I have information, that is does not matter to declassify at this moment (that can be released) which makes sure that depleted uranium ammunitions has not been used in Afghanistan.
Later the US military rejects claims that it used DU bunker busters in Afghanistan. It also denies allegations that the weapons it used in Afghanistan are affecting health and the environment. Another letter from the DoD also confirmed that DU was not used in guided bombs or cruise missiles.
It was ironic that in a period of less that one year (2005) the following letter was sent regarding depleted uranium ammunition: It talks about the movement of critical munitions (DU) to our forces in Afghanistan.
In an interview early 2008 Major Chris Belcher, spokesman for the coalition forces said the following "We don't use depleted uranium in Afghanistan; we don't have a requirement to use that," But he did say that such weapons might have been used in the past. "I don't have any knowledge of what might have been used in 2001 and 2002. If there was an armour threat, the DU rounds would have been used to counter that threat."
Dr C Ross Anthony from the Rand Corporation, the US think-tank, suggested use of DU ordnance would have been light in Afghanistan. "With very few of them (DU weapons) being used, it is hard for me to imagine that much of a real environmental problem exists," he said.
As you can see we have repeated statements that said weapon in Afghanistan did not contain uranium components so what does the A-10 aircraft use in that huge notorious gun that protrudes from its nose?
Let's just again review what weapons or aircraft in Afghanistan are believed to be using uranium components:
Munitions known or suspected of containing Uranium and means of delivery: 25 and 30 mm shells, bunker busting bombs and missiles (GBU-28, 15,24,27,31 and 37, AGM-130C) all of which were/are delivered by one or more of the following aircraft F-15E, B-2, A-10, AC-130 Spooky, and Apache helicopter [AH-64], GBM-109 Tomahawk and AGM-86D CALCM cruise missiles.
The picture to the left is the deadly A-10 aircraft that can fire thousands of DU rounds a minute. This picture was taken overhead Afghanistan late 2008. Many of the above listed aircraft visit the region on a regular basis. It is obvious by the previous letter from the US DoD and information I will provide in my next article proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the US and NATO forces have and continue to use weapons containing uranium components.
It would appear that the explosion below shows typical signs of DU and as you have guessed it was also taken in Afghanistan. In the final Part 2 I will show convincing evidence that the military has not only totally lied but also broken the safety protocol associated with such weapons. I would even go as far as to say that this explosion was also in violation of that same protocol.
- Peter Eyre, Middle East Consultant