tameelf Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm WRH: The interesting part is that Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist who was kidnapped saying her kidnappers warned her not to report what she saw in Fallujah. Kinda tells you who grabbed her and why the US military opened fire on her during her rescue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I was just reading the same story in The Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece If this turns out to be correct then the American 'liberators' were every bit as bad as the thugs who were propping up Saddam's evil regime. I suppose I could pretend to be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 "Whiskey Papa" - White Phosphorous is a legal weapon, if you can imagine such a thing. It is used for "quick smoke" missions. I once watched a Fire Mission where a regiment - 18 guns - fired a mixture of WP and HE. It was hard to imagine that anything could live through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. The Allied forces were engaged in biological warfare from the outset, that's why they targetted water & sewage treatement facilities plus the effects of the sanctions. water + human waste + hot weather + Little or no medical supplies = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 There is still the question of who supplied the technology to Iraq to produce those weapons, D Rumsfelt figures in there somewhere. Strange thing also is that the Uk/US were delighted to supply weapons to Iraq when it fought Iran but now we chunter cos we suspect that Iran may be arming Iraqi "insurgents" A tad "do as i say, not do as i do" perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 This White Phosphorus stuff does sound rather nasty: White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death. ... Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant. The EPA requires that spills or accidental releases into the environment of 1 pound or more of white phosphorus be reported to the EPA. (Source) Er..so back home, you have to report it when you spill 1 pound, and once you're at war, it's ok to dump significantly more of that stuff? Work that one out... From WikiP: Weapons Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol. Surpise, surprise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The intention was to protect the civilian population against incendiary carpet bombing as was used against Dresden. As a thermo-nuclear device is also classed as an incendiary weapon countries like the US were for some strange reason not prepared to sign away their nuclear deterrant in 1980. You can call in a white phos "quick smoke" Fire Mission against any target you like as long as it is not delivered by an aircraft. It's called war and it's a very nasty, dirty, ugly business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I was just reading the same story in The Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece If this turns out to be correct then the American 'liberators' were every bit as bad as the thugs who were propping up Saddam's evil regime. I suppose I could pretend to be surprised. I'm also not suprised. How can the Americans hope to win support if they resort to the same tactics as the 'evil-doers' (Bush's words)? A super power should use its influence to make a better world and support nations who need help - not use their influence to get what they want. I don't believe everything I hear about the US troops but even if we believe half of it they still appear to be as bad as the people they are fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Massive weapons are not necessarily weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction are devices such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. Let’s face it. No weapon is nice. All weapons are intended to kill and maim but some, such as REAL weapons of MASS destruction, are intended to indiscriminately destroy both civilian and military populations and assets as an objective and over an area far beyond the immediate theatre of war or battleground. Weapons such as the ‘Daisycutter’ although unquestionably massive weapons, are not and should not be confused with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Likewise antipersonnel weapons such as White Phosphorus are also not weapons of mass destruction. Just plain nasty. But when the threat is from the gutter, as in Iraq, there’s times that you need to – and should - get into the sewer to be effective. Personally I have no problem with the World War three battle that is taking place in Iraq other than I feel the terms of engagement opf our troops and the constraints against attacking mosques are unreasonable and should be significantly relaxed. Nice guys don’t win wars and in this case neither will they win a peace against an enemy who sees ‘niceness’ in war, like compromise, as nothing other than weakness and loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Err..Rog: I think the point is, that the US is using extremely powerful weapons against "insurgents" and civilians in a war, which they started illegally and under false pretences. It's one thing climbing into a sewer to clean it out. It's another to create that sewer in the first place and then complain about the smell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Err..Rog: I think the point is, that the US is using extremely powerful weapons against "insurgents" and civilians in a war, which they started illegally and under false pretences. It's one thing climbing into a sewer to clean it out. It's another to create that sewer in the first place and then complain about the smell... The war is not illegal as there is no such thing as a legal war. There are actions that have been sanctioned by the UN Security Council that resulted in war like methods, but that is NOT the same as one nation or a collaborative force of nations declaring war on another. Next there is no case to answer too the charge of the US as a strategy using ANY weapons against civilians. Obviously there are going to be civilian casualties as a result of errors of intel or as collateral damage in any war, especially where irregular forces are involved and where the fifth columnists, the irregular fighters, and the terrorists operate from within civilian areas, as is unfortunately the case. Likewise there are no doubt the odd cases of individual soldiers ‘going feral’ (and who could blame them) happens but the statement that the US are ‘using extremely powerful weapons against civilians’ is totally false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Likewise there are no doubt the odd cases of individual soldiers ‘going feral’ (and who could blame them) happens but the statement that the US are ‘using extremely powerful weapons <you>against civilians’</you> is totally false. Did you watch the report mentioned in the first post? And did you read the bit about "white phosphorus" and the Geneva Protocol ? I'm not sure, but dead women and children in the street could indicate a civilian presence, and if WP and "Napalm" Dumb Bombs don't count as powerful, then what does? And if the war is not illegal, what is it then? Would you prefer the term "unjustified" or does "unprovoked invasion" sound better? How you can possibly try to defend this slaughter is beyond me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 If the terrorists and fifth columnists elect to hide within civilian populations then the blame for the injuries must lie with them and not the US. As regards Geneva Protocols – they don’t apply to irregular fighters. As regards bombs being powerful – so what./ That’s the nature of bombs. They are still not Weapons of Mass Destruction And the war – entirely justified in my opinion and the opinion of a great deal more people besides, certainly not an unprovoked – saddam provoked it and could have prevented it simply by abiding by the conditions laid down on him, The slaughter? Of civilians, regrettable. Of the irregular fighters – bring it on some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 If the terrorists and fifth columnists elect to hide within civilian populations then the blame for the injuries must lie with them and not the US. As regards Geneva Protocols – they don’t apply to irregular fighters. As regards bombs being powerful – so what./ That’s the nature of bombs. They are still not Weapons of Mass Destruction And the war – entirely justified in my opinion and the opinion of a great deal more people besides, certainly not an unprovoked – saddam provoked it and could have prevented it simply by abiding by the conditions laid down on him, The slaughter? Of civilians, regrettable. Of the irregular fighters – bring it on some more. Can't agree. Firstly the war was and still is illegal. The United Nations have said so and the majority of countries would agree with this. The majority of the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish populations are against the war as has been shown by numerous polls. The only countries of the coalition whose people support the illegal invasion are the US and Poland where, in both countries, support is falling. The Americans are to blame for civilian deaths even if the fighters are hiding amongst them. If the Americans were better at public relations and had the support of the Iraqi population then these people woudn't be able to hide among them. America is as evil as the regime they have removed. They still use forms of torture and if they are unable to they routinely move prisoners to countries where they can be tortured (sources are available if requested). This illegal war has done nothing but provoke more attacks in the future and tarnish the image of the US and Britain around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 We can all only call ‘em as we see ‘em. I guess background, experience, perspective, knowledge and even age come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.