If the West can nuke their own soldiers.. guess that explains why they have no qualms slaughtering Muslim civilians everywhere..

-----

Cold War in paradise



Some 50 years ago, thousands of excitable young servicemen landed on the white sands of a Pacific paradise to oversee Britain's testing of early nuclear bombs. But what happened next damaged them mentally and physically for life, some claim, and now they want to be compensated.

Dressed in overalls, white protective gloves and a balaclava, 21-year-old naval cook Dougie Hern was ordered to sit on the beach, back to the bomb, his knees pulled up, eyes closed and hands over his face. A countdown began... three, two, one.

"We saw a bright, brilliant light," he recalls. "It was as if someone had switched a firebar on in your head. It grew brighter and you could see the bones in your hands, like pink X-rays, in front of your closed eyes."

Seconds later, they were ordered to stand and turn towards the blast.

People were knocked off their feet, palm trees shook, birds were blinded and glass shattered as a mushroom cloud rose from the horizon, parting the clouds.

Moments later, the servicemen were told to stand down and resume their duties.
     



It was all over in about 14 seconds, but Mr Hern, now 72, believes radiation exposure on that day and four others is behind his diabetes, the spurs growing on his sternum, and much worse, the death of his 13-year-old daughter from cancer.

For decades, British ex-servicemen who were stationed on Christmas Island in the South Pacific in the 1950s have been embroiled in legal battles, trying to win recognition for their work and compensation for poor health they say is the result of the nuclear tests.

Their latest attempt to sue the British government goes before the High Court on Wednesday, when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to argue the claims have been brought too long after the events.

If the MoD loses, the government could face its largest class action yet, involving claims for millions of pounds from 1,000 individuals, say the veterans' lawyers.

Compensation claims by members of the armed forces are not uncommon these days, but the events from the 1950s are unlikely to ever be seen again.

Against a backdrop of de-colonisation and the growing threat of the Cold War, Britain was desperate to establish itself as a nuclear power. The tests, which encompassed six nuclear blasts in all, sent a message of might to the world. But the apparent lack of concern for the wellbeing of servicemen has left shockwaves of anger in some.

"If they gave the order today, there would be wholesale mutiny on the ship," says Mr Hern.

"We had complete faith in our masters. We were trained not to ask questions. We knew what had happened in Japan. I thought it could not happen here. They would not do it to us."
     

BRITAIN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS
• US dropped first atomic bomb used in war on Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945
• About 20,000 servicemen from Britain and overseas involved in tests in Pacific and Maralinga, Australia in 1950s
• Six nuclear detonations took place on Christmas Island 1957-8
• The island, part of Republic of Kiribati, also known as Kiritimati
• Bombs exploded in air, rather than on ground, to try to reduce fallout
• Tests led to Britain becoming a thermonuclear power

A job in the armed forces was about being "one of a number", according to Derek Chappell, who had to record data from the H-bomb from about 20 miles away.

Tony Stannage, a sapper in the Royal Engineers brought to the island to build living quarters, roads and the airstrip, says they had no choice.

"It was our duty. If they were going to do another test today, where would they do it?"

The take-it-in-your-stride attitude was so ingrained in Mr Stannage, it was not until a 2002 Christmas Island reunion with fellow servicemen that he spoke of the bombs. "My family and friends might have read about them but they would never have understood," he explains.

For others, the day Britain detonated its first H-bomb over Christmas Island is a story that has been told time and time again, some memories merging, others melting away.

"Everyone in my mind tells a different story but no one is telling lies," says Mr Stannage.

Shorts and sunglasses

The recollections of these three ex-servicemen suggest an island that may have looked like a tropical idyll but in reality was a place to make do and dream of home.

There was little food, land crabs roamed the island, coconut palms were used for fans and clothes were stored in orange boxes.

Orders were to dress only in long-sleeved shirts and full trousers to avoid the blistering heat.

On bomb test days, some servicemen were given the same protective gear as that worn by Dougie Hern, others wore just shorts and sunglasses.

Many complained of being at a loss for things to do, with sport and fishing the only leisure activities.



Mr Chappell, in the RAF, claims in his 50 days on the island, he did just one day's work, the day of the H-bomb.

TBC...

yes, they did a similar thing here in aussie.

Course, nowadays we know better. But they did not then.
It was an error of judgment, pushed by lack of knowledge and military desires.

There have been so many experiments on unsuspecting citizens and soldiers by injecting plutonium and exposing them to radiation fallout - that this doesn't come as a surprise.  There are pages of information on how the UK & US government have used its own citizens for decades for testing toxins on - not to mention those poor souls living near a US army base.

It was only a couple of years ago that Bush approached Howard requesting that some of our troops be used for experiments - but what most of us are ignorant about is that most soldiers and innocent civilians in US war zones - if not already dead, have been poisoned by depleted uranium since the Gulf War.


If the Pentagon and the Federal government can treat American troops and their families with such casual disregard and use doublespeak with such abandon, what hope is there for Iraqi civilians and troops?

A toxic and radioactive substance, depleted uranium (DU)- otherwise known as Uranium 238-was widely used by U.S. troops as their Abrams battle tanks and A-10 Warthogs thundered through Iraq.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of enriched uranium, the fissile material in nuclear weapons. It is pyrophoric, burning spontaneously on impact. That, along with its extreme density, makes depleted uranium munitions the Pentagon's ideal choice for penetrating an enemy's tank armor or reinforced bunkers.

When a DU shell hits its target, it burns, losing anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of its mass and dispersing a fine dust that can be carried long distances by winds or absorbed directly into the soil and groundwater.

Depleted uranium's radioactive and toxic residue has been linked to birth defects, cancers, the Gulf War Syndrome, and environmental damage.

Fahey was responsible for publicizing the findings of a July 1990 report by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a defense contractor commissioned by the Pentagon to study depleted uranium.

The report revealed that the Pentagon knew that depleted uranium was harmful before 1991, when they sent 697,000 American troops to the Gulf, where they could be exposed to DU dust and residue.

SAIC asserted that depleted uranium is "a low-level alpha radiation emitter" that could be "linked to cancer when exposures are internal." The report further warned, "DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects." In addition the report found that "short-term effects of high doses [of depleted uranium] can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."

The people of Iraq have known nothing but decades of war, deprivation, and oppression. It is understandable that many cheered when the statues of dictator Saddam Hussein toppled. At the same time, how could they greet the United States, their liberators, with anything other than the deepest skepticism

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WeaponMassDecepton_DU.html

Yes - that paragraph is contradictory Grendel.  Many Iraqis no doubt lived in ignorance and denial like some I won't name.  Ask them now who they would prefer running their country - Saddam or the US, although Obama may have brought them some hope.

Not that I condone Saddam, but who can forget the hospitals prior to the invasion where sanctions deprived the Iraqi children and citizens of even the most basic painkillers or antibiotics.  The hospitals were full of children with deformities and cancer, but it's only in recent years we've discovered why - depleted uranium from the Gulf War. 

Quote:


Thanks Grendel - more of your usual compliments.  So what is it that didn't make sense?  There were no ramifications from DU - there were no sanctions imposed on Iraq affecting the hospitals in particular or the Americans really cared about those affected by the fallout of DU, including the troops suffering from Gulf war syndrome and the high incidence of birth defects in Iraq following the Gulf war from the scattered DU.  

These photos will probably be censored by Photobucket shortly - but here are some examples.  These are by no means the worst, but if you want to see the real affects go to:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html.

Yes the Americans are great at blocking investigations and using their own scientists to give "foregone" conclusions about the safety of their arsenal.  Nothing can interfere with their production of the most toxic and effective weapons we have ever seen.

Like their lies and coverups in regard to the use of Napalm again in Fallejuh.  Do you need proof Grendel that Napalm causes bodies to burn and melt?

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had "lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq". (06-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9307.htm


In regard to birth defects in Iraq - do you believe the Americans would compile statistics?  Of course the Iraqi's haven't been in a position to prepare formal statistics to prove DU is responsible for the high number of birth defects, because they haven't got the technology to do so,  but these comments from a Basra Teaching hospital.


Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, a British-trained oncologist, displays, in four gaily colored photo albums, what he says are actual snapshots of the nightmares.
   
The photos represent the surge in birth defects -- in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births -- that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.

There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.

On a tour of one ward of the hospital, doctors pointed out boys and girls who were suffering from leukemia. Most of the children die, the doctors said, because there are insufficient drugs available for their treatment.

There was one notable exception, a young boy whose family was able to buy the expensive drugs on the black market.

Al-Ali said it defies logic to absolve DU of blame when veterans of the Gulf War and of the fighting in the Balkans share common illnesses with children in southern Iraq.

"The cause of all of these cancers and deformities remains theoretical because we can't confirm the presence of uranium in tissue or urine with the equipment we have," said Al-Ali. "And because of the sanctions, we can't get the equipment we need."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml


Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.

That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU "amounts to a massive malpractice," Dietz said in an interview last week.

Quote:


Don't read my rubbish then and FRANKLY I am sick of your rudeness and total lack of manners.  You act like a spoilt, nasty brat.  Grow up Grendel.  Most of the people here are nice to you and reasonably polite, but you think you've got carte blanche to put people down as though they're of no consequence.

We've all got different views on different subjects and I, like anyone else, have a right to voice them.  My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone's - so unless you've got something constructive to say to me - say nothing.

Quote:


First off sprint covered this already concisely and correctly...

Secondly just where is it that the West are slaughtering Muslims.  i don't recall any western nation going to war and slaughtering a particular religious group.  Not since the nazis anyway.  Put up or shut up Abu  or do we put this down to another Abuism... a lie.

Gee do you think the whole of the West decided to slaughter them because they were Muslims?

I guess YOU do.   

It is time for muslims to make up their minds, and choose what side they are on, and who represents them.

When we see muslim clerics pronouncing attacks on terror groups, as attacks on Islam, and muslims everywhere, then we have them aligning themselves with the likes of Al Quaeda, et al.

Yet when they have people accuse muslims of giving support to these types of terror groups, even if only tacitly, then we see, and hear their outraged indignation voiced belligerently.

So, as usual, their lack of structure, and leadership, allows them to make any spurious claim, that suits them at the time, and that is a recipe for promoting cynicism, and mistrust, which is the last thing that they need, when their credibility stocks are already at an all time low.

mozzaok,

Quote:


Your pathetic echoing of Bush's "Us or them" ultimatum does you no justice mozza.

Quote:


This is just nonsense. It's akin to saying "If you don't like our attacks on you, then you must be a terrorist, or terrorist supporter". The West has quite clearly been attacking Muslims, physically and ideologically. Not only has the West been waging physical wars, as mentioned above by Mantra, but they've been waging an ideological war also, which involves attacking the belief system of Islam and attempting to incite mistrust and fear against Muslims, and the results can be seen in some of the nutcase posters here. Even if we accept the attack on Afghanistan as a targeted attempt to get rid of someone who attacked America (of which absolutely no evidence was provided), the fact is that tens of thousands of innocent Muslim civilians were the ones who ended up being killed, Bin Laden, the man supposedly already guilty (without trial), has not been killed. Likewise the Taliban had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and the US government hasn't even declared them a terrorist group, yet so many of them have been attacked and slaughtered, for no reason other than they're Muslims.

Quote:


It's purely guilt by association. Hence the perception it's a war against our religion.

Why, because she presents clear and rational arguments backed up by facts that you can't refute?

Thanks Abu - I appreciate your comments.  Grendel has a way of trying to demean a person until they begin to doubt their own rationale.

He isn't as dumb as he appears, but because he's so "blunt" and impatient, it detracts from any salient points he might be trying to get across and immediately puts you on the defensive.  He's so one-eyed at times, the only "facts" he recognises are his own.

Quote:


It seems to me that more people tell you that you're wrong - not that it matters if people do tell me that I make mistakes.  If it's said politely, I'll go back and review what I've said or apologise - that's never been a big deal to me.

Don't tell me to doubt myself Grendel.  Sometimes I wonder whether you're a sociopath with your indifference and contempt of others.

They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

And that's only the start.

Leave out the rudeness and the thread won't get interrupted and we can move on.  I'm not going to accept the cra p you dish out to me and you should know that by now.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but you're the one who keeps bringing the subject up - not me.  I don't care if people don't agree with me - I like arguing but on an equal level, not with low life language.