According to the same study infant mortality, cancer, and leukemia rates in Fallujah have surpassed the rates recorded among survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Following the Fallujah offensives, the rates in question rose by 60%. Dr Mushin Sabbak of the Basra Maternity Hospital explained the rises as resulting from weapons used by the U.S. and U.K. "We have no other explanation than this," he said.
And the problem extends far beyond Fallujah. Increased cancer rates and astronomical rises in birth defects have been recorded in Mosul, Najaf, Basra, Hawijah, Nineveh, and Baghdad. As documented by Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Michigan, there is "an epidemic of birth defects in Iraq." She writes,
"Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects -- some never described in any medical books -- are weighing heavily on Iraqi families."
Australian anti-war activist, Donna Mulhearn, who has travelled repeatedly to Fallujah, talking with Iraqi doctors as well as affected families, added to the list:
"babies born with parts of their skulls missing, various tumors, missing genitalia, limbs and eyes, severe brain damage, unusual rates of paralyzing spina bifida (marked by the gruesome holes found in the tiny infants' backs), Encephalocele (a neural tube defect marked by swollen sac-like protrusions from the head), and more."
Several highly remarkable aspects of the situation just described immediately present themselves. For one there is the almost total silence of the media about the crimes of the U.S. and U.K. Then there is the lack of outrage by president Obama and secretary of state Kerry. And what about those members of Congress so concerned about damage and pain to unborn fetuses? (I mean, what we have here in effect is a massive abortion campaign by the United States in an entirely illegal war which has already claimed more than a million mostly civilian casualties.)
However, what is most remarkable about the contrast between responses to Syria and Iraq is the continued surprise of "Americans" by reprisal attacks by Muslims, which continue to be identified by our media as irrational and evil "terrorist attacks."
That is, on the one hand, the U.S. feels free to self-righteously rush to judgment and "punish" the suspected perpetrators of the Syrian attacks. But on the other, it hides, classifies, and otherwise suppresses photographs and scientific reports testifying to its own much worse crimes. Once again, those outrages are carried out against unborn fetuses, living children, women, the elderly and male adults -- the very same population cohorts that so concern our "leaders" when they are attacked by designated enemies.
The logic is inescapable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the U.S. is outraged by the killing of innocents and feels the need to "punish" the suspected perpetrators, someone else has the right to treat the United States in the same way. (We might not know of the crimes of our government and military, but the whole Arab world knows!)
So we shouldn't be surprised by a Boston Marathon "massacre," or by militants seizing hotels or malls and killing randomly.
That's the cost of hypocrisy, double standards, wars of aggression, and the use of outlawed weapons of mass destruction. In war ghastly offensives elicit ghastly counter-offensives.
1 | 2