Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Silent Genocide

Robert Koehler | 28.03.2004 07:40 | Cambridge

03/25/04 Tribune Media Services -- "After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death."

This will not be easy to read, especially if you've projected evil out of your own heart, into some cave in Afghanistan or a spider hole in Iraq, and reduced the age-old question it inspires to this one: How can we bomb it off the face of the earth?

Before the damage we inflict grows greater, before history's judgment gets worse, before we contaminate the whole world - even before we vote in the next election - we must stop what we're doing. We must stop now.

It's time to listen for a moment not to defense analysts briefing officers, pols or pundits, but to people like Jooma Khan, a grandfather who lives in a village in Laghman Province, in northeastern Afghanistan, who is quoted above. Surely he deserves 30 seconds of our undivided attention. "When I saw my deformed grandson," he told an interviewer in March of 2003, "I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good. (This is) different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silent death from which I know we will not escape."

We're waging war-plus in Afghanistan and Iraq - in effect, nuclear war, with our widespread use of depleted-uranium-tipped shells and missiles. This is no secret. DU, with its extraordinary penetrating power and explode-on-impact capability, helps assure our military dominance everywhere we go. But people like Jooma Khan and his grandson reap its toxic legacy.

So, of course, do our own troops.

Kahn's words are only a sliver of the damning testimony contained in the documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, a Japanese citizens' initiative that recently concluded its two-year inquiry into the first phase of the Bush Administration's war on terror. But they say everything that we cannot hear. If we could hear Jooma Khan, and others who are sounding the alarm about DU, such as former Livermore Labs geologist Leuren Moret, who testified at the tribunal, there would not be mere thousands of people in the streets of American cities demanding that we stop the war, but hundreds of thousands, or millions - the sort of numbers that turn out in other parts of the world. The use of DU weaponry is not the extent of our criminal irresponsibility in Afghanistan and Iraq, which led to the tribunal's guilty verdict against George Bush on charges of war crimes, but it's the most chilling. (You can check out the full report at, among other places, www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm )

As Moret testified, depleted uranium turns into a infinitesimally fine dust after it explodes; individual particles are smaller than a virus or bacteria. And, "It is estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment."

And DU dust is everywhere. A minimum of 500 or 600 tons now litter Afghanistan, and several times that amount are spread across Iraq. In terms of global atmospheric pollution, we've already released the equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs, Moret said. The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse. DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe or touch it; the substance also alters one's genetic code.

Thus, birth defects are way up in Afghanistan since the invasion: children "born with no eyes, no limbs, tumors protruding from their mouths ...deformed genitalia," according to the tribunal report. This ghastly toll on the unborn - on the future - has led investigators to coin the term "silent genocide" to describe the effects of this horrific weapon.


The Pentagon's response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.

But blame is beside the point. Surely even those who still await "conclusive proof" that DU is the cause, or a factor, in the mystery illnesses and birth defects emanating from the war zones, can see the logic in halting its use now.

Global terrorism? Listen to Jooma Khan. Then look in the mirror.

- - -
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. Tribune Media Services, Inc.

© 2004 Tribune Media Services

Robert Koehler
- Homepage: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5941.htm


Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

NOT TRUE

28.03.2004 10:14

The assertions made in this article are simply false.

DU is used for 'tank busting'. How many tanks did the Taliban have? DU munitions are employed on relativelyt short range tactical aircraft. These were not based in Afghanistan.

DU does not have the effects described. I attach 2 PDF files for anyone interested. You will note that these are fully referenced and peer reviewed.

sceptic


Use of DU on "superhardened targets"

28.03.2004 12:25

Depleted Uranium isn't only used for tank-busting, but also for bunker-busting, and there is fyll referenced and peer-reviewed evidence that it has been used in Afghanistan.

Dr. Assaf Durakovic (a retired U.S. Army Colonel) of the Uranium Medical Research Center has verified extremely high uranium excretion rates in Afghanistan refugees:
 http://www.umrc.net/Abstract_HPS_SanDiego2003.asp
 http://www.umrc.net/Abstract_EANM_Amsterdam2003.asp
 http://www.umrc.net/AfghanistanOEF.asp
 http://www.umrc.net/umrcResearch.asp
 http://www.umrc.net/umrcResearch2.asp
 http://www.umrc.net/papersAndAbstracts.asp

Like many peer-reviewed scientific articles, these are mostly available online only by subscription, but you can read the full articles in many good university & medical libraries.

By the way there's only one PDF posted on that last comment: I'd be interested to see the second one.

Ian


missing pdf

28.03.2004 12:51

apologies for only the one - I hope the second comes through.

Only one snag, Ian - your references state specifically that the uranium in the refugees is NOT depleted uranium.

sceptic


DU and NDU

28.03.2004 14:50

Apologies, those studies are indeed about Uranium weapons, not Depleted Uranium. But the same kinds of health risks apply: Uranium is highly toxic, lasts for a long time post-war, and its dust is impossible to remove when hostilities have ceased. It's therefore as morally indefensible for use in aerial bombardment as cluster bombs. Surely it doesn't matter very much whether DU or NDU killed this man's grandson, beyond correcting the article to state that the evidence is for NDU contamination, not DU.

 http://www.umrc.net/

Ian


uranium

28.03.2004 16:03

Uranium poisoning *might* have killed this child, but there is no evidence for it. Uranium has not shown to have significant tetragenic effects. No uranium was used by the Americans in Afghanistan.

To re-iterate my original point, the journalist writing the article is either ignorant, or a fool, or a liar, or most likely, inventing material with an attempt to smear.

sceptic


Certainty

28.03.2004 18:26

Why are you so certain no uranium was used in Afghanistan, after you've seen the evidence presented?

What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?

Isn't it logical to think that the military might be lying about not having used uranium weapons, especially as military uranium poisoning court cases are still sub judice as we write this?

Ian


urnaium

28.03.2004 19:31

"Why are you so certain no uranium was used in Afghanistan, after you've seen the evidence presented?"

1. because the evidence is that it is not DU.

2. DU weapons are used against tanks by tactical aircraft.
(i) the Taliban didn't use tanks;
(ii) there were no tactical aircraft based in Afghanistan

"What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?"

Who knows. Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth's surface.

"Isn't it logical to think that the military might be lying about not having used uranium weapons, especially as military uranium poisoning court cases are still sub judice as we write this?"

Logical? Logical it is not. It is at the best an untested hypothesis. The use of DU in Iraq and the Balkans is not disputed. Why might it be here?



sceptic


Uranium in Guided Missiles

28.03.2004 19:57

Its the opinion that Depleted Uranium was the metal used in many bombs and missiles used to attack the cave hideouts of the taliban, NOT tank-busting shells

 http://abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s593117.htm

 http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm

Hermes


DU

28.03.2004 20:31

Here is another interesting article, though.

 http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf

It is very critical of claims made by anti-DU activists, but also by pro-DU folk

It all boils down to people actually having to make a study into the effects of DU on civilian populations, rather than simple speculation. I'm sure both sides will read into it whatever they like...

Hermes


Re: uranium

28.03.2004 23:05

sceptic, the evidence I cited above is for NDU. Your assertion above was that "No uranium was used by the Americans in Afghanistan."

Yet I have shown evidence that NDU was used. Your response to this is "because the evidence is that it is not DU." Well no, it's not: the evidence is that it's NDU. Therefore it appears that uranium was used by the Americans in Afghanistan.

You go on to answer my question "What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?" with:
"Who knows. Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth's surface."

Since you cannot answer why the UMRC's studies show anomalous levels of uranium in refugees from the US bombings, your assertion that uranium was not used is unconvincing. My hypothesis about the US military possibly needing to hide evidence during a potentially expensive and embarrassing lawsuit is therefore no less valid than your assertion to the contrary.

Here is an article by Professor Marc Herold on the use of uranium munitions, for tank-busting, bunker-busting and cave-busting, by the US military. The references cited at the end of the article are also useful.
 http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm

In your first comment, you wrote that "DU munitions are employed on relatively short range tactical aircraft. These were not based in Afghanistan."
This appears to be contradicted by Herold's article. Can you please explain which aircraft you're talking about, so we can compare evidence? Many thanks,

Ian


Links