Depleted uranium, again

An almost damning report in the Guardian:

A study examining the causes of a dramatic spike in birth defects in the Iraqi city of Falluja has for the first time concluded that genetic damage could have been caused by weaponry used in US assaults that took place six years ago.

The research, which will be published next week, confirms earlier estimates revealed by the Guardian of a major, unexplained rise in cancers and chronic neural-tube, cardiac and skeletal defects in newborns. The authors found that malformations are close to 11 times higher than normal rates, and rose to unprecedented levels in the first half of this year – a period that had not been surveyed in earlier reports.

Author Martin Chulov then speculates about likely speculation:

The findings are likely to prompt further speculation that the defects were caused by depleted uranium rounds, which were heavily used in two large battles in the city in April and November 2004. The rounds, which contain ionising radiation, are a core component of the armouries of numerous militaries and militias.

Their effects have long been called into question, with some scientists claiming they leave behind a toxic residue, caused when the round – either from an assault rifle or artillery piece – bursts through its target. However, no evidence has yet been established that proves this, and some researchers instead claim that depleted uranium has been demonstrably proven not to be a contaminant.

Chulov has no idea what he's talking about. Depleted uranium ordnance is specifically designed to penetrate the armour of armoured vehicles whereas there were few if any tanks or other armoured vehicles in Falluja. Depleted uranium rounds were fired from neither assault rifles nor artillery. The fighting was not a set piece military battle but rather involved U.S. forces against insurgents.

Regardless, the study does not in any way link munitions to the alleged increase in birth abnormalities. There's also a small problem with one of the report's author's, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, who in late 2009 speculated:

Who cares more for Afghans' safety? Do Afghans themselves care more, or do the U.S. and European occupiers care more? Many mainstream media would have you believe that the occupiers care more. For example, see the December 17th story on the BBC, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8417964.stm).

Can anyone really claim that French and Polish lives mattered more to their Nazi occupiers than to the occupied French and Polish themselves? The absurdity of such claims should be quickly apparent. But is it really apparent, when the U.S. and Europeans are doing the occupying?

Today's BBC reports on an Afghan "market bombing" that was presumably being carried out by a motorbike carrying two men, heading straight toward a crowded market. The "two men" who supposedly were carrying out the bombing and their affiliations are not known.

The first question that arises in my mind is: who benefits from chaos and outright murder of Afghan (or Iraqi for that matter) populations? Do Afghans benefit, or do the military occupiers benefit? Does anyone wonder how occupations perpetually justify themselves as a police force trying to create "law and order" among ungrateful native populations?

Savabieasfahani continuing:

Stories that claim the occupation forces to be the champions of humanity, or angels bringing only safety to the occupied population, are not uncommon. Many similar stories are delivered to the U.S. public about Israel. How can you expect us to believe that soldiers occupying Palestine are there to stop "the violence" and establish democracy?

From Iraq to Afghanistan to Palestine, chaos and disorder serves the occupation forces. Those who perpetuate chaos and disorder are more likely to be connected to the occupation than they are to the local unarmed civilians.

Have occupation forces really conducted bombings and blamed "the natives" for it? The answer is yes.

Now this does not discredit the Falluja report as biased hogwash but it does show that Savabieasfahani is not an unbiased reporter; this is especially so when the report is heavily speculative and woefully short of facts.