Evil Americans

[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
Just in case these pictures do not make it as long as your more patriotic ones you can find them here :

http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jHuooQTCYXc/STHHv6Jv5bI/AAAAAAAAD0U/KGEtOvVQ2VM/s400/uranium%2Bvictim1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://prisonerofjoy.blogspot.com/2008/11/victims-of-uranium-weapons-used-by.html&usg=__G1f22BpO5va_cc-UTlgUaiKsZIg=&h=300&w=400&sz=21&hl=de&start=7&um=1&tbnid=OVEyM_TPvSdDiM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dafghanistan%2Bvictims%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

American heroes, just doing their job.

Uh…no.

I do not know what the first photo shows.
I am not fetologist, but the other photos show meningoencephalocole and other neural tube defects, and fetal hydrops and cretinism. It is far more likely that the causes are perinatal deficiencies of B vitamins and folic acid, and iodine, respectively; both conditions are unfortunately very common in rural Afghanistan.

I do know a bit about radiation exposure; I believe it is called depleted uranium for a reason. Someone else may know if there is a risk of gamma emission, but I would doubt it–too risky to store and handle. Alpha and beta irradiation is not penetrant to the fetus, and single or multiple episodes of radiation do not cause the fetal monsters demonstrated here.

So, orion, if you were taken in by this Jihadist propaganda, you are a willing believer in nonsense, because it is a lie that serves your chronic refractory Anti-Americansism; or, like some of the tikes here, cretinism is also common in semi-rural Austria.

So you do not know really and those kids just happen to be born there and depleted ammunition could never pose a threat when it disintegrates after hitting a target.

So you are talking out of your ass really?

Human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU.[11] A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects.[83] After examination of children’s medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."[84]

In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[85][86] Children of British soldiers who fought in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used are at greater risk of suffering genetic diseases such as congenital malformations, commonly called “birth defects,” passed on by their fathers. In a study of U.K. troops, “Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs.”[87]

Your soldiers beg to differ.

I would bet I am a damn sight better acquainted with obstetrics and embryology than you will ever be.
If there is someone talking out his ass, it is you; so much so that it is hoarse from the operatic presentation to which it is constantly subjected.

These photos shows absolutely nothing that is directly connected to depleted uranium; exccept for the first photo, all the others represent fairly common fetal abnormalities with ready explanations.

“…a veteran.” This is it? That is your cited evidence One pension board–perhaps for political reaasons, and with no science–allowed the guy a break? Sad and ridiculous.
Everything else you have cited is simply unverifiable nonsense. The sources you have sited–with which I am familiar–cannot in any fashion connect, for example, Gulf War syndrome to U238. Period. So many things have implicated, it is hard to figure out anything.

So you have been taken in, eagerly so, by heart-breaking photos. That you persist in your ignorance is a stunning testament to your small-mindedness.

I actually had put up some pictures of kids that were just plain killed by US soldiers, with perfectly normal bombs so these posts are missing.

While I think that the deformed children popping up everywhere the US waged war are interesting they are more or less a side show
[/quote]

[i]
Jihadis fete the fetid fetus
But know that lies cannot defeat us:
The truth trumpets, washed in times’ tincture.
When orion speaks, it is through his anal sphincter.

[/i]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields?

Was Justice Jackson not clear enough?

In war this shit happens.

On both sides.

Which is why you do not start wars.

I was asking specifically about your statement regarding the use of human shields. You’re quote leads to a whole different debate. Was Iraq the aggressor against another country, first? Is there some standard that bars a country from accepting help from an outside alliance? Has the now defeated aggressor broken the ceasefire terms?[/quote]

Let me 'splain it to you, Friend Sloth:

When a recognized war crime, like using human shields, the instigators cause the death of innocent, but that’s ok if they are not Americans.
And in 9/11, no defense by the US is excusable, and Jihadis have an inalienable right to murder Americans.

Orion has the benefit of goemetric logic. Got it now?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Na, that was about the sanctions.

You know, the one that killed any old, sick or too young person in Iraq while the elite continued to live a life of luxury?

My, my what an interesting statement…

I mean, aside from the grammar mistakes, of course![/quote]

And that is what gets you over the fact that a few hundred thousand people were killed in your name.

Good for you.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Na, that was about the sanctions.

You know, the one that killed any old, sick or too young person in Iraq while the elite continued to live a life of luxury?

My, my what an interesting statement…

I mean, aside from the grammar mistakes, of course![/quote]

You might just be stupid.

Seriously.

Either you intentionally misinterpret anything so it fits your agenda or you are an idiot,

Both is not good.

I feel for you.

As far as I can possibly put myself in your place that is.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When a recognized war crime, like using human shields, the instigators cause the death of innocent, but that’s ok if they are not Americans.
And in 9/11, no defense by the US is excusable, and Jihadis have an inalienable right to murder Americans.

Orion has the benefit of goemetric logic. Got it now?

[/quote]

To be sure, I actually do think we screwed up, and need to bring them all home. I oppose our actions because, well, most of those people are too far removed from the concept of liberty to be liberated. And, too many are too cowardly or too tribal-minded, to help us hand them off a secure, democratic, non-sectarian country.

Take Iraq, for example. If we had to go in, we should’ve just tossed the place until we were satisfied that the WMD issue was dead. Then, we should’ve simply handed it off to some baathist despot to take the place of Saddam. Nation building isn’t worth it.

But, there is a big moral difference.