WAKE UP UMMAH

LIES ABOUT CHEM. WEAPONS

THE BETRAYAL CONTINUES

Guess Who Used Chem. Weapons?

The ‘Champions of Human Rights’

And ‘Promoters of Democracy’!

(Compiled by: M. Javed Naseem)

Super Powers!

With your blemished record of meddling in world affairs, attacking and invading other countries, destroying communities/nations through “divide and rule” policy coupled with lethal arms supply to the opposition, and buying out politicians at home and abroad, who is still going to trust you or respect you?

HERE’S THE PROOF FROM RECENT HISTORY!

The ‘Triangle of Evil’!

The “triangle of evil” consists of USA, UK and Israel. France should be considered a ‘European part of Israel’ or Israel’s European disguise. They all have blood of the innocent people (women and children) on their hands. They all used chemical weapons to achieve their evil goals in the hegemony of the world and they always blamed the opposition to clear their own way for attack.

 

Winston Churchill's shocking use of chemical weapons:

From: The Guardian

(www.theguardian.com)

 

The use of chemical weapons in Syria has outraged the world. But it is easy to forget that Britain has used them – and that Winston Churchill was a powerful advocate for them.

Winston Churchill speaking at a munitions factory in Ponders End, 1916. Photograph: Hulton Archive

Secrecy was paramount. Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, exactly 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the First World War, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. 

The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda”. The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. 

He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.

(Courtesy:  Shortcutsblog – ‘theguardian.com’)

USA-UK Planned To Use Chem. Weapons!

From: Jeff Rense

(www.rense.com)

Both the USA and Great Britain planned and meant to use gas during WWII. Germany as a consequence of the Versailles dictate of 1919, was forbidden to produce and import any kind of gas or liquids that could be used to produce such gasses, Article 171.

The (German) Reich kept strictly to the requirement of the Versailles dictate regarding chemical warfare equipment. Even the Weimar Republic kept to the dictate. During the Sea Disarmament Conference, 1921/22, in Washington, the following nations did not agree to gas or any chemical weapons being dangerous weapons: USA, England, France, Japan and Italy. The use of chemical weapons were discussed, but without an agreement being signed.

In June 1925, in Geneva, the question was once again discussed, one reached the so-called Geneva Gas-War Protocol. Out of the 44 nations attending the Geneva conference 38 had, by the end of 1935, signed the protocol. 21 nations took reservation, 17 were reluctant. By the end of 1935, 28 nations had ratified the convention. But 10 refused, among those were USA, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, and various nations in South America. The Reich signed without any reservations.

During WWI the American company under leadership of General Amos A. Fries, developed weapon based on chemicals. The General was manager of "Chemical Warfare Service". After 1919, General Amos A. Fries wrote a lot of articles claiming chemical weapons were the solution to new wars. Chemical weapons were human, and chemical weapons must be looked upon as blessing in wars. During the early negotiations leading up to the Hague conference in 1899, the use of gas was an important topic. The USA was for use of toxic gas and that chemical weapons were humane.

At the start of WWII both sides had poisonous shells. Bomb with poison was not at hand in Germany. "The use of gas was strictly forbidden in the Wehrmacht! Even the use of gas as answer to such bombs used against Germany needed Hitler's clearing. ... No use of chemical weapons could be used without Hitler's approval. Such weapons should only be stored inside Germany." During the war, Hitler refused many proposals by the General Staff to use poisonous gas against partisans on the Eastern Front. Hitler said "No!" He did not want such weapons used by the German Army at any front.

Incident in Poland:

The first incident involving poisonous gas in WWII occurred on the evening of Friday, September 8, 1939, in the village of Jaslo in the south of Poland. Polish troops had tried to blow up a railway bridge over the river Jasiolka. The Poles had used a chemical bomb.

As German soldiers from 1^st Gebirges-Pionere.Battalion 82 (a battalion of engineer infantry) came to clear the bridge, it exploded. The engineer soldiers found the Poles had used a chemical explosive - but that explosive had not exploded - as it exploded 14 solders became mustard gas victims, two of the soldiers died.

In 1940, England had plans to use poisonous gas should Germany start an invasion of England. Sir john Dill, Chief of the British Empire General Staff, tried hard in a memorandum of June 18, 1940 to influence Churchill, even though neither Germany nor Italy had chemical weapons to use.

On June 30, 1940 Prime Minister Churchill ordered General Ismay to prepare for the use of chemical weapons. He said: "It is my intention not to wait too long before England shall use chemical weapons." In his book on the war and especially regarding chemical warfare, Günther W. Gellermann writes: "Churchill was ready to use chemical weapons should Germany start an invasion of England, even though such weapons could harm the British". According to Gellermann, this showed how callous Churchill was towards the people of England.

In April 1942, Churchill offered Stalin 1,000 tons of mustard gas. Stalin however did not want the gas, he wanted 5,000 tons of Chlorine, which he would use to produce his own chemical weapons.

The Tragedy of Bari:

The US merchant Ship John Harvey, 10617 BRT, arrived on November 28, 1943. Her skipper was Captain Edwin F. Knowles from Baltimore, Maryland. The ship had 540 tons of mustard gas on board. Only seven US soldiers and their commanding officer, Lieutenant Howard Beckström knew about the mustard gas while none of the crew or the ship captain knew. 

On December 2, 1943, the German Luftwaffe with JU-88 bombers attacked the 30 US-transport ships in Bari. The Germans sank 17 ships and damaged 8 more. This was almost a Pearl Harbor in the Mediterranean. During the bomb attack, the ship John Harvey caught fire, exploded and sank. In the explosion the mustard gas was set free. All those who knew about the mustard gas died.

USA did not tell about the gas on board the John Harvey which led to the poisoning of 328 soldiers and sailors of whom 96 died. Even the number of civilians that died due to mustard gad poisonings was kept secret. The allies said the victims either died from burning or bronchitis or lung problems. Churchill ordered British medical personnel not to tell what the reason was. It was in 1974, for the first time, that British documents came to light disclosing the reason.

WWII Luftwaffe Raid On Bari 
Revealed US Mustard Gas Shipment
By: Eric Niderost
WWII Magazine, February 2001

John Harvey was selected to convey a shipment of poison gas to Italy to be held in reserve should such a situation occur.

John Harvey, commanded by Captain Elwin F. Knowles, was a typical Liberty ship, scarcely different from the others moored in the harbor. Much of her cargo was also conventional munitions, food and equipment. But the ship had a deadly secret cargo. Approximately 100 tons of mustard gas bombs were on board. The bombs were meant as a precaution, to be used only if the Germans resorted to chemical warfare.

When the mustard gas bombs were loaded aboard John Harvey, they looked deceptively conventional. Each bomb was 4 feet long, 8 inches in diameter and contained from 60 to 70 pounds of the chemical. Mustard is a blister gas that irritates the respiratory system and produces burns and raw ulcers on the skin. Victims exposed to the gas often suffer an agonizing death.

The poison gas shipment was shrouded in official secrecy. Even Knowles was not formally informed about the lethal cargo. Perceptive members of the crew, however, must have guessed the voyage was out of the ordinary. For one thing, 1st Lt. Howard D. Beckstrom of the 701st Chemical Maintenance Company was on board, along with a detachment of six men. All were expert in handling toxic materials and were obviously there for a purpose.

John Harvey crossed the Atlantic without incident, successfully running the gantlet of German submarines that still infested the ocean. After a stop at Oran, Algeria, the ship sailed to Augusta, Sicily, before proceeding to Bari. Lieutenant Thomas H. Richardson, the ship's cargo security officer. was one of the few people on board who officially knew about the mustard gas. His manifest clearly listed 20,000 M47A1 mustard gas bombs in the hold.

(Courtesy: www.rense.com)

(Hiroshima disaster)

When Chem. Weapons Were Used:

From: News.com

(www.news.com.au)

Sadly, such atrocities are not unique. Here are major cases of known or suspected use of chemical weapons in attacks or conflict situations.

o:- Japan, 1994/95: The Aum Supreme Truth, a doomsday cult, released sarin gas twice, the first time on June 27, 1994 in Matsumoto, near Mount Fuji, when the attack killed seven people and injured around 300 others.

On March 20, 1995 it struck again in the Tokyo metro system, killing 12 and injuring more than 5,000.

o:- Iraq, 1980-88: During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein's forces used mustard gas, cyanide and sarin gas against Iranian soldiers and civilians.

Iraq's Kurdish minority was also targeted with chemical weapons, in particular when the inhabitants of Halabja in northern Iraq were bombed with a variety of chemical agents in March 1988. Around 5,000 people, mainly women and children, were killed.

o:- Vietnam, 1961-1967: The US army made extensive use of Trioxin and Agent Orange, chemical herbicides or defoliants that were developed to deprive communist guerrillas of forest cover. Agent Orange later caused birth defects in around 150,000 Vietnamese babies, according to the Red Cross.

o:- Ethiopia, 1935-36: Italian troops used mustard gas during their invasion of the country.

o:- China, 1934; 1937-42: Japanese occupation forces used mustard gas in several Chinese regions, including northwestern Xinjiang in 1934. Gas was also used between 1937 and 1942.

o:- Libya, 1930: Troops in what was then an Italian colony used toxic gas against hostile civilian populations.

o:- Morocco, 1921-26: During the Rif War in the eponymous northern mountain range, the Spanish army used chemical gases against Berber tribes. French forces are also suspected of having used them in the same conflict.

o:- Russia, 1919: Mustard gas was used by the Soviet Union against the Basmachi rebellion, a Central Asian uprising of Muslim populations, mainly of Turkish origin.

o:- Belgium, 1915/17: The first known large scale use of chemical weapons was in April 1915 near Ypres in Belgium, when the German army sent a cloud of chlorine gas towards French lines. The attack killed 15,000 soldiers from France, Algeria and Canada, according to the World Health Organization.

Mustard gas was used for the first time at the same place in 1917.

During World War II, Nazi authorities used poison gases on a massive scale in concentration camps, resulting in the deaths of several million people, mostly Jews.

Since 1945, there have been allegations, but no formal proof, of chemical weapons use during the Korean War and in several regional conflicts, notably in North Yemen by Egyptian troops between 1963 and 1967.

Soviet troops are also suspected of having used them in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/the-horrific-story-of-chemical-warfare/story-fndir2ev-1226703203805#ixzz2eCyNbAJo

(Vietnam war)

Tabun: The First Nerve Gas!

From: The Conversation:

(www.theconversation.com)

It was in 1936 that the first nerve gas, Tabun was made. And in 1938, Sarin (which killed 13 people in an attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995) was synthesized.

At the end of the war (WW-II) Soviet, American, and British intelligence found out about the nerve agents and even more toxic ones were subsequently synthesized and weaponized. This was despite the 1925 Geneva Protocol after World War I which outlawed the use of chemical and biological weapons. But that treaty only outlawed first use and countries reserved the right to retaliate if attacked, which meant they could make chemical weapons.

Chem. Warfare From WW-I To Al-Qaeda:

From: Princeton Education

(www.princeton.edu/...)

Jonathan B. Tucker, the author of “War of Nerves” (Chemical Warfare from World War-I to Al-Qaeda), writes in his book, page 479:

“During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union raced to improve their arsenals of nerve agents, and America used Agent Orange and tear gas in Vietnam. By the 1960’s, the technology spread into the developing world. During its 1962-67 war in Yemen, Egypt (another cheating Geneva member) used chemical bombs on villages. Although Iraq was also a party to Geneva, Saddam Hussein authorized chemical warfare against Iranian troops in the 1980’s (using weapons made with help from West German, Dutch, Swiss, American and French companies) and gassed his own Kurdish population in the 1988 Anfal extermination campaign.”

France Presents ‘Discredited Lies’ As Evidence!

From: Global Research

(www.globalresearch.ca or www.globalresearch.org)

France’s intelligence services released a perfunctory, eight-page brief for war with Syria yesterday, as Socialist Party (PS) Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault met with leaders of France’s right-wing opposition parties to press them to support President François Hollande’s war drive.

Hollande’s intelligence brief is a collection of already-discredited lies, non sequiturs, and unsupported claims. Reviewing it makes clear that Hollande’s charges against the Syrian regime are as unsubstantiated as those of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who suffered a humiliating defeat when he tried to obtain parliamentary approval for war in Syria last week.

The document’s central claim is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons “notably Sarin, in limited attacks against his own people, in particular in April 2013. Intelligence available to us today leads us to estimate that on August 21, 2013, the Syrian regime launched attacks on certain neighborhoods of the Damascus suburbs held by opposition units, with both conventional weapons and the massive use of chemical agents.”

The first lie, that Assad regime forces used chemical weapons in the cities of Saraqeb and Jobar in April, has already been refuted by UN inspector Carla del Ponte. In May, based on UN investigations on the ground in Syria, she stated that the US-backed opposition was responsible for the use of chemical weapons (see: “UN says US-backed opposition, not Syrian regime, used poison gas”). Separately, Turkish authorities found that Syrian opposition fighters in Turkey possessed quantities of sarin gas.

The French brief neither mentions nor attempts to refute these findings, but simply covers up evidence that Al Qaeda-linked forces among its own proxies are responsible for the chemical weapons attacks, both in April and in August.

10 Chem. Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About:

From: Alex Jones’ InfoWars

(www.infowars.com)

By: Wesley Messamore
(policymic.com) September 5, 2013

It lacks the moral authority. We’re talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.

Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians..

1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971

2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009

3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004

4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988

5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s

6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011

7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993

8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003

9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 – 1945

10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945

(Courtesy: Alex Jones’ www.infowars.com)

Fooling Ourselves Into War:

From: The Huffington Post

(www.huffingtonpost.com )

Excerpts from: “Fooling Ourselves Into War” by Gavin de Becker:

As an expert on the prediction and prevention of violence, I can't do a thing to prevent the U.S. military action against Syria, but I can predict with certainty that it is coming. That means we can see recent congressional debate for what it is: an illusion and distraction. In our times, a president does not state his intention to take military action, and then change his mind a few days later -- no matter what.

Secretary of State John Kerry, America's chief diplomat -- yet oddly also the chief spokesperson for attacking Syria -- based the entire case on chemical weapons.

He expressed his horror at seeing video images of people "dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound," as if the absence of blood and wounds is the origin of the horror. During the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in their beds by asphyxiation (no blood). At Nagasaki and Hiroshima, civilians were burned alive (no blood, or at least none that remained liquid).

Much reference is being made to the various Geneva Conventions and their prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. Treaties have identified and carved out some forms of killing as distinct from others, taking the position that it makes a profound difference whether people die from bullets, bombs, chemicals, or fire. The distinction most frequently cited is that chemical weapons are indiscriminate. Observers all over Iraq and Afghanistan would say the exact same thing about bombs and missiles, and particularly cluster bombs, delayed-action cluster bombs, and all the "bomblets" that didn't explode until a curious child picked up one of the many small silver orbs found on the ground. Our best intentions aside, these results are indiscriminate.

Chemical weapons happen to damage tissue another way, but it's all about tissue damage nonetheless. Chemical weapons conjure (and some can cause) gasping, choking, dying. Bullets, bombs, and white phosphorous often cause the exact same experiences, and the exact same results. 

The act of identifying one type of lethal weapon as being unacceptable carries with it the implicit endorsement of the other lethal weapons as acceptable.

The U.S. has itself been a persistent presence in the history of alleged war crimes, and as with all such allegations, there are accusers and defenders, evidence and witnesses, denials and admissions (more denials than admissions, perhaps naturally). There are famous examples, such as the intentional mass killing of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intentional mass immolation and asphyxiation of civilians during the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, the use of napalm (in Vietnam), and the more recent abuse and killing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

There are also less widely-known examples, such as our current use of depleted uranium ammunition, which most countries of the world perceive to be a violation of international prohibitions on "poison or poisoned weapons."

Not surprisingly, there are countries that defend our use of depleted uranium ammunition (four of them – USA, UK, France, Israel) – and countries that oppose it (155 of them), and without trying to prove either case, it's fair to conclude that something the U.S. and its allies use in battle isn't healthy for the civilians who are fortunate enough to survive the intended consequence of contact with munitions.

All the recent talk about the Geneva Conventions doesn't illuminate for the public what's actually contained in those four treaties. The Geneva Conventions are the mad product of nations opining somewhat irrelevantly about how killing should be conducted.

One quickly sees that the treaties are not quite so lofty as many imagine. For example, here's a carve-out by the US:

“The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”

Explain that lawyerly passage to a mother and her children who asphyxiate when incendiary weapons suck the oxygen from their home. Tell them about all the suffering they were spared.

Another U.S. amendment:

“a trip-wired hand grenade shall be considered a "booby-trap" under Article 2(4) of the Amended Mines Protocol and shall not be considered a "mine" or an "anti-personnel mine" under Article 2(1) or Article 2(3), respectively^.”

The people perforated by shrapnel don't care what you call your device, and their families don't care how well you parse the words.

One last example of an important contract point the U.S. makes:

"Any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action shall only be judged on the basis of that person's assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken."

Such as later learning there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Such as learning later that Iraqi soldiers didn't really leave babies for dead in a Kuwaiti hospital in 1990. Or learning later that the Gulf of Tonkin events used to publicly justify the war on North Vietnam didn't happen as described. Let's not be surprised if we later add to the list the Syrian government's official and intentional use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. After all, the U.S. administration had already decided Assad must go, independent of those terrible video images.

The U.S. has chosen a side in Syria's civil war, and is providing lethal resources and lethal assistance to that side, though it's not easy to know who the good guys are (or who the less-bad guys are). Defense Secretary Hagel, yesterday:

"This is an imperfect situation. There are no good options. This is complicated. There is no clarity."

The Secretary has explained the challenge very well, and it's hardly a case for war. Yet today, we are warned by John Kerry and others that if we don't act with lethal force, the Syrian government will kill thousands more people. Let's not be deluded: When we do intervene militarily, the Syrian government (and we) will kill thousands more. And anti-Assad forces will also kill more.

Some Historical Notes:

1 - Coalition forces in Iraq used cluster munitions in residential areas, and Iraq remains among the most contaminated countries to this day. Unexploded ‘bomblets’ still pose a threat to both our military personnel in the area, and local civilians. The U.S. arsenal includes depleted uranium shells, and delayed-action cluster bombs, as well as white phosphorous munitions that amount to chemical weapons when they burn human beings.

2 - In her book ‘One Woman's Army’, Janis Karpinski, the Commanding General of Abu Ghraib, acknowledges U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU said, "There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths. High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

3 - The United Nations Human Rights Commission passed two motions – the first in 1996 and the second in 1997, which listed weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium.

A UN working paper was delivered in 2002 by Y. K. J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of depleted uranium weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Genocide Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, theGeneva Conventions including Protocol I, the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980, and theChemical Weapons Convention.

4 - In December 2008, 141 countries voted for a resolution requesting that the United Nations and its World Health Organization conduct further research on the impact of uranium munitions; the United States voted against the resolution.

5 - In December 2010, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on users of depleted uranium to hand over quantitative and geographical data on their use to affected countries when requested to do so. The resolution passed by 148 votes to four. The United States, UK, Israel and France voted against.

6 - In December 2012 the UN General Assembly passed a fourth resolution on depleted uranium which had called for a precautionary approach to the use of depleted uranium munitions. The resolution was supported by 155 states; the United States voted against the resolution.

7 - In 2004, Iraq had the highest mortality rate due to leukemia of any country. In 2003, the Royal Society called for Western militaries to disclose where and how much depleted uranium they had used in Iraq so that rigorous, and hopefully conclusive, studies could be undertaken out in affected areas. A medical survey, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009" published in July 2010, states that the "Increase in cancer and birth defects...are alarmingly high" and that infant mortality 2009/2010 has reached 13.6%. 

8 - At the time of the first war on Iraq, U.S. actions were perceived as more than justified because we were told that Iraqi soldiers had killed babies in Kuwait. The atrocities of our enemies are always extreme, and this was no exception. Testimony by a young witness named Nayirah (she gave only her first name) before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus reached and outraged more than 50 million Americans. She described seeing Iraqi soldiers storm into a Kuwaiti hospital, take babies out of incubators, and leave them on the floor to die. Can you imagine it? Well, it turns out someone did just that: imagined it. Two years passed before it was revealed that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. It was further revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" public relations campaign run by a U.S. public affairs company that was paid a million dollars by the Kuwaiti government. "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" was headquartered at the Kuwaiti Embassy. The whole story has been well-told (see the New York Times article "Deception on Capitol Hill").

It's a cautionary tale that might encourage us to gain more certainty as to whether the Assad Government is responsible for whatever caused the video images just seen by millions of Americans.

(Courtesy: www.huffingtonpost.com)

***********