• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cancer rise in Fallujah

The study declares "None of us have any conflicts of interest."

Bull-****.

Malak Hamdan, one of the authors of the study, writes articles for globalresearch.ca which is an extreme-left and Truther website. She's also a member of Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq, which is an anti-US, far-left organization.

She delivered a speech saying Saddam Hussein respected women's rights, was co-operative with the UN and that US sanctions killed a million people.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/Abdulmunaem_Almula200310.pdf

She did it at a protest organized by Iraq Solidarity, which supports terrorists in Iraq.
http://almudheef.ahlamuntada.com/montada-f10/topic-t637.htm

She's a member of the Brussels Tribunal which is an extremist "anti-war" and anti-Israel group. Their website opens with the text "Questioning the New Imperial World Order".
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
That was a claim made by a 9/11 truther.
Click to expand...
The important thing is that the 9/11 truthers, neo-nazi holocaust deniers and "progressives" have all found a cause to rally around and are all buddy-buddy now... doesn't it bring a tear to your eye?
 
WildCat said:
The important thing is that the 9/11 truthers, neo-nazi holocaust deniers and "progressives" have all found a cause to rally around and are all buddy-buddy now... doesn't it bring a tear to your eye?
Click to expand...

Not if they rally closely around it in a tight formation and we have the GPS coordinates.
 
Virus said:
The study declares "None of us have any conflicts of interest."

Bull-****.

Malak Hamdan, one of the authors of the study, writes articles for globalresearch.ca which is an extreme-left and Truther website. She's also a member of Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq, which is an anti-US, far-left organization.

She delivered a speech saying Saddam Hussein respected women's rights, was co-operative with the UN and that US sanctions killed a million people.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/Abdulmunaem_Almula200310.pdf

She did it at a protest organized by Iraq Solidarity, which supports terrorists in Iraq.
http://almudheef.ahlamuntada.com/montada-f10/topic-t637.htm

She's a member of the Brussels Tribunal which is an extremist "anti-war" and anti-Israel group. Their website opens with the text "Questioning the New Imperial World Order".
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/
Click to expand...



This is the thing I don't understand about the anti-war crowd.

I was against the war in Iraq too. I thought the case for war was insipid, the decisions were made in the months after 9/11 when emotions were high and people weren't thinking rationally, but I couldn't see any connection between Iraq and 9/11 and didn't understand why anyone would even consider the war to be a good idea.

But that decision was made 8 years ago, and it can't be un-made. Nobody has the ability to go back in time and change it. The only thing we can do is try to figure out the best outcome from where we're at now.

It seems like the anti-war crowd is still fighting that decision from eight years ago. It's like they just don't understand that time only flows in one direction.

And the way they're fighting that decision is to find or manufacture as much negative anti-US propaganda as they can. Article after article, everything the US plans to do is doomed to fail, if it doesn't fail then it's still bad, even when it seems to be good, it's still bad...on and on it goes.

What I don't get is...what's that supposed to accomplish? Do they want us to leave Iraq? Why? The fighting part of the war is over, the people still there are helping to rebuild. Why not support them in that? Don't we want to leave Iraq as a stable country that's able to protect the rights of its citizens?
 
Mycroft said:
This is the thing I don't understand about the anti-war crowd.

I was against the war in Iraq too. I thought the case for war was insipid, the decisions were made in the months after 9/11 when emotions were high and people weren't thinking rationally, but I couldn't see any connection between Iraq and 9/11 and didn't understand why anyone would even consider the war to be a good idea.

But that decision was made 8 years ago, and it can't be un-made. Nobody has the ability to go back in time and change it. The only thing we can do is try to figure out the best outcome from where we're at now.

It seems like the anti-war crowd is still fighting that decision from eight years ago. It's like they just don't understand that time only flows in one direction.

And the way they're fighting that decision is to find or manufacture as much negative anti-US propaganda as they can. Article after article, everything the US plans to do is doomed to fail, if it doesn't fail then it's still bad, even when it seems to be good, it's still bad...on and on it goes.

What I don't get is...what's that supposed to accomplish? Do they want us to leave Iraq? Why? The fighting part of the war is over, the people still there are helping to rebuild. Why not support them in that? Don't we want to leave Iraq as a stable country that's able to protect the rights of its citizens?
Click to expand...

They aren't truly anti-war. They are for the war but support the other side. Some people really did oppose the war out of pacifist sympathies, but these extremist leftists are not pacifists.
 
The first reference on the paper is an article by Malak Hamdan on GlobalResearch.ca

Since when were far-left, pro-terrorist, Truther websites valid academic references? Unless you're writing a paper on people that are ****-ed in the head.
 
Last edited:
FireGarden said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html



That last is, apparently, because girls have two X chromosomes, while boys have only one and a Y. But I've not been able to find a reference to a change in sex ratio at Hiroshima which doesn't mention Fallujah, ie: a reference which isn't a recent story.
Click to expand...

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'


Great headline. Is the author recommending the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield instead of conventional weapons?

(He isn't, of course, but he should be if atomic bombs are less lethal in the long run.)
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Is it really a vanity journal, or just an open-access journal working on a cost-recovery basis?
Click to expand...

Judging by some of the titles I mentioned earlier and the fee (1000 CHF or so), it's a vanity journal. That doesn't mean every article in it is worthless, but that an appeal to the papers' authority is false.

McHrozni
 
Virus said:
Why would they need DU in Fallujah? Al-Qaeda don't have tanks.
Click to expand...

If enough structures in Fallujah were built from scavenged and repourposed tank hulls, it could have resulted in use by US forces of DU munitions in sufficient numbers to create the level of environmental DU that DU truthers claim to observe.
 
WildCat said:
Hint: When the "peer review" process means waiting for the check to clear, it's a vanity journal.
Click to expand...



The editorial board includes apparent experts from the CDC and US Army.

The journal is indexed here:

•CAB Abstracts
•Chemical Abstracts (CAS)
•Current Contents
•Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
•e-Helvetica (Swiss National Library Archive)
•EBSCOhost
•EMBASE
•Global Health
•Google Scholar
•IndexCopernicus
•Journal Citation Report
•Open-J-Gate
•PubMed / MEDLINE
•PubMed Central
•Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
•Scopus

Do these indices not have standards for the journals they list?

I skimmed through a little bit of this article.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphl...cess-publishing-a-vanity-publishing-industry/

I don't think that an 'open access' journal that charges a fee is tantamount to a vanity journal. Now, the journal in question could be both, but one does not necessarily imply the other.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Maybe they can find Al-Qeadas missing tanks that would have justified and necessitated the use of DU munitions?
Click to expand...


you seem confidant that the US army doesn't fire DU rounds at anything but tanks....is this a rule in the US army? I remember when I was in the army we were pretty much allowed to shoot at anything with anti-armor weapons like the little 66mm rocket launcher. We used them a lot, never saw a tank....Is it a law in the current US army?


but I do wish the US army would just come out and tell if it used DU....would you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom