This is topic US Used Chemical WMD in Fallujah-- video; US GI witness being swiftboated. in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.
US Used Chemical WMD in Fallujah-- video; US GI witness being swiftboated.
Italian state TV reported this morning that the US used chemical weapons-- white phosphorus, which melts human flesh to the bones "I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosphorous explodes and forms a plume. Whoever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," one former US GI, Jimmy Massey reports.
Actual video clips (click image to fill screen) from the Italian Documentary, 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' show charred remains of female victims and an interview with a former US GI.
The Italian Documentary reported, on Tuesday, November 8th, that white phosphorous is supposed to be used "to illuminate enemy emplacements" purposes, to light up the sky. This documentary claims the shells were fired indiscriminately and the documentary claims to show images of Americans strafing the city with phosphorus.
Mohamad Tareq, a biologist who was in Fallujah, reported in the film, "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn. We found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
The documentary reports that Manifesto reporter Giulana Sgrena said, "I gathered accounts of the use of phosphorus and napalm from a few Fallujah refugees whom I met before being kidnapped," who was kidnapped in Fallujah last February, in a recorded interview. I wanted to get the story out, but my kidnappers would not permit it.
The suppression of this story gets darker when one considers that Sgrena was wounded by American troops at the same time that Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari was killed by the US troops. The Italian people and government have opposed the war in Iraq.
The film also reveals the use of a new kind of Napalm, called MK77, reporting that "The use of these incendiary substances on civilians is prohibited from the conventions of the UN since 1980."
In the US, Massey, author of a book published in France, Kill, Kill, Kill is being Swift-boated by "fellow GIs and the mainstream media are reporting that he has never actually witnessed what he's reported.
The US military has denied the accusations as "disinformation.
US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah
By Peter Popham Published: 08 November 2005
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."
In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.
"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.
Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.
The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."
In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.
"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.
Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.
The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.
06/27/05 "ICH" - - "You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Robert Duvall, "Apocalypse Now" (1979)
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. This is the extent to which the American "free press" is yoked to the center of power in Washington. As we've seen with the Downing Street memo, (which was reluctantly reported 5 weeks after it appeared in the British press) the air-tight American media ignores any story that doesn't embrace their collective support for the war. The prospect that the US military is using "universally reviled" weapons runs counter to the media-generated narrative that the war was motivated by humanitarian concerns (to topple a brutal dictator) as well as to eliminate the elusive WMDs. We can now say with certainty that the only WMDs in Iraq were those that were introduced by foreign invaders from the US who have used them to subjugate the indigenous people.
"Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm" the Pentagon insisted that "US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq." (UK Independent)
The Pentagon lied.
Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area."
Regrettably, "indiscriminate and extreme injuries" are a vital part of the American terror-campaign in Iraq; a well-coordinated strategy designed to spawn panic through random acts of violence.
It's clear that the military never needed to use napalm in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry and laser-guided technology were already enough to run roughshod over the Iraqi army and seize Baghdad almost unobstructed. Napalm was introduced simply to terrorize the Iraqi people; to pacify through intimidation. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte are old-hands at terrorism, dating back to their counterinsurgency projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador under the Reagan Administration. They know that the threat of immolation serves as a powerful deterrent and fits seamlessly into their overarching scheme of rule through fear. Terror and deception are the rotating parts of the same axis; the two imperatives of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy strategy.
Napalm in Falluja
The US also used napalm in the siege of Falluja as was reported in the UK Mirror ("Falluja Napalmed", 11-28-04) The Mirror said, "President George Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet-fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun the world.. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.Since the American assault on Falluja there have been reports of 'melted' corpse, which appeared to have napalm injuries."
"Human fireballs" and "melted corpses"; these are the real expressions of Operation Iraqi Freedom not the bland platitudes issuing from the presidential podium.
Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, who was the head of the Iraqi Ministry of Health in Falluja, reported to Al Jazeera (and to the Washington Post, although it was never reported) that "research, prepared by his medical team, prove that the US forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks on the war-torn city."
Dr Shaykhli's claims have been corroborated by numerous eyewitness accounts as well as reports that "all forms of nature were wiped out in Falluja".as well as "hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." An unidentified chemical was used in the bombing raids that killed every living creature in certain areas of the city.
As journalist Dahr Jamail reported later in his article "What is the US trying to Hide?", "At least two kilometers of soil were removed..exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."
A cover up?
So far, none of this has appeared in any American media, nor has the media reported that the United Nations has been rebuffed twice by the Defense Dept. in calling for an independent investigation into what really took place in Falluja. The US simply waves away the international body as a minor nuisance while the media scrupulously omits any mention of the allegations from their coverage.
We can assume that the order to use napalm (as well as the other, unidentified substances) came straight from the office of Donald Rumsfeld. No one else could have issued that order, nor would they have risked their career by unilaterally using banned weapons when their use was entirely gratuitous. Rumsfeld's directive is consistent with other decisions attributed to the Defense Secretary; like the authorizing of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the targeting of members of the press, and the rehiring of members of Saddam's Secret Police ( the Mukhabarat) to carry out their brutal activities under new leadership. Rumsfeld's office has been the headwaters for most of the administration's treachery. Napalm simply adds depth to an already prodigious list of war crimes on Rumsfeld's resume'.
Co-opting the Media
On June 10, 2005 numerous sources reported that the "U.S. Special Operations Command hired three firms to produce newspaper stories, television broadcasts and Internet web sites to spread American propaganda overseas. The Tampa-based military headquarters, which oversees commandos and psychological warfare, may spend up to $100 million for the media campaign over the next five years." (James Crawley, Media General News Service) It's clear that there's no need for the Defense Dept. to shore up its "strategic information" (propaganda) operations in the US where reliable apparatchiks can be counted on to obfuscate, omit or exaggerate the coverage of the war according to the requirements of the Pentagon. The American press has been as skillful at embellishing the imaginary heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman as they have been in concealing the damning details of the Downing Street Memo or the lack of evidence concerning the alleged WMDs. Should we be surprised that the media has remained silent about the immolation of Iraqis by American firebombs?
The US "free press" is a completely integrated part of the state-information system. Its meticulously managed message has been the most successful part of the entire Iraqi debacle. By providing the requisite cheerleading, diversions and omissions, the media has shown itself to be an invaluable asset to the men in power; perpetuating the deceptions that keep the public acquiescent during a savage colonial war. Given the scope of the media's culpability for the violence in Iraq, it's unlikely that the use of napalm will cause any great crisis of conscience. Their deft coverage has already facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people; a few more charred Iraqis shouldn't matter.
If this video doesn't move you, you have a heart of stone.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I can't believe you are starting this all over again. Maybe Jane can pose in Iraq with the terrorists, maybe this time she can flip off the american soldier.
Posted by 4Art on :
Did you even watch the video, IWISHIHAD?
Posted by bdgee on :
IWISHIHAD,
You need to get off the bandwagon of prejudice and hate for all that aren't exact clones of yourself. Just because you were once in service doesn't give you the right to demand someone's freedom of speach be curtailed. You ARE NOT A BETTER AMERICAN for having served in the military and your incessant declarations that were in the military and thus you have more right to an opinion than others is insulting to the reality of being American.
Posted by 4Art on :
There are many VETS who despise this war and its largely chickenhawk supporters.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Watch some, not going to waste my time. You have friendly fire casualties, you have soldiers that dissagree, you have all kinds of scenarios. But bottom line what is the best way to protect the minority of the soldiers while we are there? I know you say pull out, thats great, but thats not a realistic answer for now. Maybe slingshots for the americans. I'll tell you this, if you are in deep sh____ in combat you sure want anything that will get you out with the least amount of casualties including napalm. What kind of warfare should we use in Iraq -4 ART.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I do not like the war, never have I have stated this many times. We send our soldiers in harms way with their hands tied. I don't feel the Iraq's want there freedom enough to fight for it so we mount up the casualties. But we are there and the soldiers need are respect and every way possible to protect their lives.
Posted by 4Art on :
I don't know the answer to that, IWISHIHAD, but we need to pull out while there is still an inkling of support. The sooner the better.
It's going to be like Vietnam, I fear; the results were worse the longer we stayed.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It was meant to read Majority of soldiers.
Posted by 4Art on :
I realized that. My response is the same. The video is here. Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
What do you think I am suppose to get out of the video?
Posted by 4Art on :
As a vet, do you dispute any of what the video contains? If so, what part or parts?
Also, I know you say pulling out now is not a realistic option.
When will it be realistic, in your opinion?
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
IWISHIHAD why are you so angry at 4art?
I think 4art would agree, I think his intentions are not to defame the individual troops.
We need to know what's happening. I don't think he is defaming them directly, but demonstrating, giving evidence that this administration has made all of this possible, encouraged and forced certain actions by the soldiers that are there.
The actual troops are in a horrible situation thanks to rich, old warmongering people who've never been shot at. They grew up in isolated lifestyles and have no idea what a real american is or what a real soldier has to endure.
Because certain actions are brought to light doesn't mean one supports terrorists. I don't think 4art condones terrorists.
The problem again is with this administration that has created a certain perception of what a terrorist IS.
In a nutshell the perception they want to create and have been successful is to HATE all muslims... (rememeber hitler generating hatred toward the reds and jews?)
So now you have detainees, many of which are probably regular Iraqie citizens that are in treated as terrorists.
They order things like the use of napalm or simply to kill everything in site and then expect other nations to approve and us to accept this as exceptable war behavior. It's not.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
These situations like this, I cannot answer, you have to be there to know everything. I don't know how long these soldier have been in Iraq, who they are in any way ,to many varibles to answer. It's like the fraging news, it seem's so simple,one soldier killing another, but sometimes it is not. I have no idea when we will get out, I thought it would take a new president to get us out, but now there is a lot more support to get us out, people are getting fed up with this war. I hope in the next year at least, I wish it would be today.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
MasterQuinn I am not angry at 4art. These events you read are not just black and white, the news media wants you to belive this. How to you know who the good Iraq's are? They must be the ones dressed in white. This is not germany and has nothing to do with your thoughts.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
quote:I can't believe you are starting this all over again. Maybe Jane can pose in Iraq with the terrorists, maybe this time she can flip off the american soldier.
Reads like anger.
I know the events are not black and white, never said they were, neither did 4art.
quote:How to you know who the good Iraq's are? They must be the ones dressed in white
That's my POINT. The soldiers don't and are just doing their job! (did you read my post?)
quote:This is not germany and has nothing to do with your thoughts.
It's frightening similar to the rise of Nazi Germany... Do I need to break out the history book?
Nothing to do with my thoughts? All your comments are thoughts, I'm not entitled?
Posted by 4Art on :
Another thought...
It's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions to use white phosphorous bombs on civilian populations.
Posted by bdgee on :
It is clear that a single viewpoint does not encompass the broad reality of events, either those that happened in Iraq or those that occured in Viet Nam (or some that may be from some other event in some other war or even no in a war at all). No doubt the view point of the soldier trapped within the battle is heartfelt and vivid and no doubt, too, the fear and dread that he can never get beyond colors and shades from him the view of the events as they appear to one not present.
Indeed, probably the last person to make rational judgements of such events are the persons that were there, who probably relied on instinct and gut reaction in order to survive, and, thus, can not see the picture otherwise. But threats to those that have other views and nasty evaluations and assessments of their purpose and character are NOT points of reason and the fact of having been there does not make them reason..
The Viet Nam War was wrong! I do not blame the poor guy there in the battles for being there and never have, but when one demands that he has a right to shut me or someone else up about it, I know I am dealing with a person with only selfish motive.....a person unwilling to grant the right to opine and speak to others.
If you can't listen to views different from your own, then don't listen (here, don't click on the link of course). BUT DON'T OFFER THREATS AND DAMAGE TO THOSE WITH A DIFFERENT OPINIONs AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION AND A RIGHT TO VOICE IT, EVEN IF IT OPPOSES YOUR OWN. Moreover, military service is not a requirement for having those rights. You have no right to bully them quiet.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
The attack on Fallujah was carried out with advance warning given to the civilians in the town. It was surrounded and they were given the option to leave. Article neglected to mention this
****************
The Times November 02, 2004
American firepower in place as battle for Fallujah looms From James Hider, near Fallujah
ONLY a few miles separate the rebel city of Fallujah from the sprawling complex of US Marine bases. While the Iraqi city is steadily emptying of people, the American camps are rapidly filling up with extra men and armour, ready for what is expected to be a fight for the very soul of Iraq. Almost as soon as the United States elections are over, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, reinforced by army units specially drafted in from across Iraq, is expected to mount a massive attack on Fallujah.
Skirmishes have begun already. Every day F18 fighter-bombers screech up from carriers in the Persian Gulf to bomb suspected guerrilla safehouses or mortar positions. Eight Marines were killed when a suicide car bomber rammed their convoy at the weekend. And from the military camps, the boom of outgoing mortar shells or the occasional thump of an incoming round regularly breaks the silence of the autumnal desert. In chow halls, Iraqi National Guards soldiers share hi-carb meals with Marines in training for the showdown.
Few doubt that an attack is imminent after Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, gave warning on Sunday that his patience was wearing thin and that the stop-start talks to defuse the crisis were in their “final phase”. Guerrilla sources told The Times that Mr Allawi had given up on talks weeks ago, storming into negotiations and telling the rebels’ representatives: “It is too late, the train of war is already in Fallujah.”
Publicly Mr Allawi has called on the people of Fallujah to hand over Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the terrorist mastermind who has kidnapped and bombed his way to a $25 million (£14 million) bounty, matched only by the price on the head of Osama bin Laden. The city elders have replied that even the Americans have been unable to stop al-Zarqawi and his powerful network. They cannot be expected to step in where the superpower has failed.
In anticipation of the battle, and with memories of April’s bloody and abortive invasion still fresh, as many as two thirds of Fallujah’s 280,000 residents have fled, leaving a ghost town where American commanders expect to confront up to 5,000 rebels and foreign fighters. Regular airstrikes have left many of the buildings, including Fallujah’s renowned kebab shop, as nothing more than piles of dust.
“Whoever looks around Fallujah now can only feel sadness. The damage is so heavy the suburbs look like they were hit by an earthquake,” Mohammed al-Alwani, a bank employee, said.
The Iraqi fighters are a mixture of Islamic extremists, Saddam Hussein loyalists, fiercely territorial tribesmen and criminal gangs, according to Marine intelligence officers. Their allegiances, goals and tactics are constantly shifting: the increase in brutal attacks on Iraqis by the foreign Islamists are showing signs of straining relations between those cells and the Iraqi resistance.
Both sides have had months to prepare for battle. The Marines invaded in April after four American security contractors were burnt, mutilated and hung from a bridge. In the face of the toughest combat since the Vietnam War, with casualties rising on both sides, US commander ordered a halt to its three-week offensive and the creation of a local militia to enforce law and order.
But the Fallujah Brigades were an abject failure, siding with the guerrillas and, in many cases, handing over their weapons to them. Fallujah became a staging point for guerrillas heading across the western and northern areas of the country, pushing a wedge of insurgency through western Baghdad and to the heart of the capital.
With Iraqi elections looming in January, the interim Government has decided that it has to regain control of the rebellious Sunni Triangle or risk seeing the entire US-backed democratic project in Iraq crumble.
“We are gearing up to do an operation and when we’re told to go, we’ll go, and we’ll whack them,” Brigadier-General Dennis Hajlik, the Marines’ deputy commander, said. “As for the number of troops, it’ll be enough to get the job done in a decisive fashion.”
Iraqi forces will be involved in the operation to give it an “Iraqi face”, he said. The Iraqi troops have been in intensive training since the April uprising, when up to 80 per cent of those fighting in Fallujah melted away.
However, the guerrillas have also had months to prepare for the onslaught. Resistance groups say that they have been moving more weapons along the rat-runs through the southwestern desert from Saudi Arabia and along the River Euphrates from Syria. The Black Watch have been deployed to the south of Fallujah to stop more weapons and men heading in or out once the battle starts.
Among the US Marines morale is high, but many admit to understandable pre-battle jitters. “It is a scary thought,” said Cameron Begbie, a 23-year-old Marines medic from Fresno, California, who arrived here a month ago and has never seen combat.
But he knows what he is fighting for and is determined to see the job through. “It’s a city that needs to be liberated to ensure elections go down in the rest of the country. You can’t have a free country when you have pockets of resistance,” he said, adding that few of his comrades believed that the fight would be a quick one.
One of the key tests will be what happens to Fallujah after the battle. Upriver along the Euphrates, US forces have never left Ramadi, but the provincial capital is a virtual battlefield, where gunfights erupt almost daily. The Marines will have to install an effective Iraqi force in the volatile tribal cities to quell violence and allow reconstruction to start and the economy to revive.
Until then the Marines are writing letters home and trying to concentrate on the fight ahead. “I spend as much time as I can with my guys, let them know: ‘I’m with you, you’re with me’,” Corpsman Begbie said. “We’re all nervous, we all want to get back to our families safe and sound.”
*****************
White Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is its use prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
chemical weapons
Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke ammunition are not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Art. 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
Posted by 4Art on :
A picture is worth more than a million words from the "compassionate" conservatives.
This story can not be buried.
I urge everyone to watch this video and send it to your friends.
War is unpleasant at times, but you were making the arguement that this specific attack was illegal which it is not.
You thus are once again attacking the US military without grounds.
That too cannot be buried.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
The key is, it is NOT a direct letter violation of the Geneva Conventions.
That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur. Our nation goes out of its way to observe the Geneva conventions and minimize civilian casualties causeing more harm to our own troops in the process. We are dealing with an enemy which does not adhere to the Geneva conventions, which hides itself behind and among civilians with the express purpose of thwarting our attacks knowing we will not target them. They hide in mosques, in cemeterys, in schools, all prohibited under Geneva.
The attack on Falujah as posted well in advance. The civilians were warned to get out, most did. Those that did not in some instances were unfortunately killed. That is war.
The Geneva conventions were met, there was no violation in law or spirit of the law.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Why, is the video going to change the existing Geneva Conventions laws of war?
It isn't.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
I'm sure not afraid of this video changing the existing laws of the Geneva Convention which you continue to indicate were violated.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Posted by HILANDER on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4Art: [QB] No Aragorn243,
I'm actually making the argument that the US military hit civilians with white phosphorus and/or MK-77 bombs.
And the problem with that is the same civillians are shooting at us night. During the day they are all smiles and waves, at night the shoot at us. My new PL dealt with that a lot. He had pictures of him and his guys in Sadr City hanging out during the day with the same dudes that were shooting at them at night. Saw a series of pics showing one Iraqi drinking a beer and joking with us then the next piture is of the same guy taken through a snipers scope while he was shooting at Americans. The next picture showed his head with about 50% of it missing. That's how it works over there. So pick me out the innocent civillian.
Posted by 4Art on :
I'm not. I just know that people will make up their own minds once they see some the real results of the "compassionate conservatives" unjust war.
Posted by glassman on :
That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur.
since you are so into technicalities? maybe you should show US how this is technically a WAR...
the US has not declared war since???? when??? been awhile ehh?
hilander is point on: we are fighting a huge number of people and that uncovers another set of lies...... it was only a few months ago that Cheney was saying the "insurgency" was in it's last throes...
hmmm....
Posted by 4Art on :
Ooooh.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur.
since you are so into technicalities? maybe you should show US how this is technically a WAR...
the US has not declared war since???? when??? been awhile ehh?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
"Real results" of war are everywhere. The images aren't hard to find and are some of the most downloaded on the net. I think the people have made up their minds, they enjoy the carnage, it's just another movie to them, entertainment.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Germany, right after Japan.
Posted by 4Art on :
To hell with me, answer Glass!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur.
since you are so into technicalities? maybe you should show US how this is technically a WAR...
the US has not declared war since???? when??? been awhile ehh?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
OK, the hell with ya! LOL
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Posted by glassman on :
we are not in a war...
we are involved in a "Nation Building" experience with people that don't want it... who knew?
funny part right here: Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
seems this part is in error
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: To hell with me, answer Glass!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: That it is a violation of its spirit is a matter of interpretation which has no effect on the actual LAW.
War is very unpleasant and unpleasant things occur.
since you are so into technicalities? maybe you should show US how this is technically a WAR...
the US has not declared war since???? when??? been awhile ehh?
There is no war on Iraq... there is a war on terror... Iraq is just one of many battle fronts... Glass you and I have been through this many times in the last two years... did you really forget that part?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
There you go, enjoy.
Posted by 4Art on :
Thanks, Dusty! I don't care who gets the message across.
LOL
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101: OK, the hell with ya! LOL
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Currently, there is no war. We are an occupation force fighting an insurgency after the end of a war.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
OH TAy
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Aragorn... I have posted that very resolution atleast fifteen times on this site... just watch as they now spin it into something they think serves them.
Posted by 4Art on :
I wonder if The War On Terror will be as effective as The War On Drugs.
Stay tuned...
Posted by glassman on :
i do admire stubborn people... even if they are wrong...
strider? that is not a declaration of war....
we aren't at war with the Iraqi peole and we aren't at war with Muslims as a whole..the President says so...
Posted by 4Art on :
What? Is the War on Terror a bunch of crap then?
LOL
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Currently, there is no war. We are an occupation force fighting an insurgency after the end of a war.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
I think we need to declare War on other peoples pets......
Posted by 4Art on :
The government might spend a little more time preparing for the 'War On Hurricanes' too!
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Howz abouts war on accordian players?
Posted by 4Art on :
Play an accordion - go to jail!
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
We have not had a declaration of war since WWII. Yet we have been involved in many wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq. They are still wars whether you want to define them as such or not.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Play an accordion - go to jail!
------------------------------------------------- Would you be willing to pay for they're rehabilitation?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
The war on terror is a metaphor meant to suggest that this is a fight against terrorism wherever it might threaten us.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: We have not had a declaration of war since WWII. Yet we have been involved in many wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq. They are still wars whether you want to define them as such or not.
you are the one that is so "into" technicalities....
grenada a WAR? LOL now that is funny....
you forgot the kidnapping of Noriega.... that was a war too ehh?
Posted by 4Art on :
Get enough of 'em together in a room and the noise will be its own form of rehabilitation.
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101:
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Play an accordion - go to jail!
------------------------------------------------- Would you be willing to pay for they're rehabilitation?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Lets not declare War on Banjo players, they have an Ally that would stick with them....
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
A war is a war declared or not. Nothing technical about it.
A bit different than stating the Geneva Conventions were violated when they were not. Or Chemical weapons were used when they were not.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Get enough of 'em together in a room and the noise will be its own form of rehabilitation.
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101:
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Play an accordion - go to jail!
------------------------------------------------- Would you be willing to pay for they're rehabilitation?
------------------------------------------------ So, you would torture accordian players, but not insurgents that want to kill you and your family?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: A war is a war declared or not. Nothing technical about it.
A bit different than stating the Geneva Conventions were violated when they were not. Or Chemical weapons were used when they were not.
like i said? i'm not convinced WE used them....
and to 4art i say pressing a fallacious case does more harm to your cause than good...
i'm sure we'll learn the truth of it eventually, probably sooner rather than later in this political climate, and even then some of you (whichever side you are on) will refuse to accept it....
i won't buy into a technicality of changing the chemical formula a few percentage points to call napalm soemthing else and then saying we weren't in violation of a treaty we signed (if we did sign one)..
Napalm is a mixture of benzene (21%), gasoline (33%), and polystyrene (46%). Benzene is a normal component of gasoline (about 2%). The gasoline used in napalm is the same leaded or unleaded gas that is used in automobiles.
Posted by 4Art on :
I feel that the documentary: 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows that the US did not use the substance for its legitimate purpose - as an aid to highlight the position of the enemy - but dropped it indiscriminately in large amounts.
Posted by glassman on :
ooops i guess i missed this part:
Reuters reported that the US military in Iraq denied US forces used phosphorus against civilians in the offensive. But, the military confirmed that US forces had dropped Mark 77 firebombs against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.
white phosphorous then, yeah we would never use white phosphorous...they bad, we good....
Posted by HILANDER on :
What dropped artillery rounds or grendades indiscriminately? That's usually the way the stuff comes packaged. Art, have you even seen a real white phosphorous grenade? You do understand how illum works when fired as an artillery fire mission right? So, you are saying we indiscriminately dropped illumination rounds on the enemy? Do you know how illum rounds are best employed? And even if we did just "drop" them on people, there are no explosive properties involved with an illumination round. Man you have got to be kidding me. I know, maybe I'll let one of my buddies who is an artillery officer explain how the munitions you are claiming were improperly used really work.
Posted by 4Art on :
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
US forces ‘used chemical weapons on Fallujah’
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with appalling burns that indicate this weapon was used, reported The Independent on Tuesday.
The newspaper’s website said that photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack provide graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, on Tuesday morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says, “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah,” reported The Independent.
“Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone, I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.”
The website said that photographs on RAI’s official website (www.rainews24.it) show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
According to The Independent, Mohamad Tariq, a biologist in Fallujah interviewed by RAI for the film, said, “A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.”
The documentary, entitled ‘Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre’, also claims that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, were used in the attack, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980.
However, Reuters reported that the US military in Iraq denied US forces used phosphorus against civilians in the offensive. But, the military confirmed that US forces had dropped Mark 77 firebombs against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.
Well, IF they did use phosphorous, they weren't using illums. They were using the real deal, which in Fallujah or any other combat zone, isn't against any rule of war that I am aware of. It's just a nasty conventional munition.
Posted by HILANDER on :
And it's employment probably saved American lives.
Posted by 4Art on :
Mark 77 firebombs appear to be pretty nasty as well.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
I believe the Geneva Conventions already addressed both what is and is not a chemical weapon, neither napalm or white phosphorus is, and what is prohibited, neither is.
Posted by bdgee on :
Though they are not listed as chemical weapons, the use of both is outlawed by the convention, just as is the use of certain bullet constructions.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
Neither napalm or white phosphorus is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by 4Art on :
Then you will have no legal objection if they are used on Americans, Aragorn243.
Posted by bdgee on :
Aragorn243,
You are misinformed.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
its called WILLY P and its not a CHEMICAL WEAPON oh my god you are retarded! chemical weapons are like sarin or nerve agents....you want to know what chemical weapons are i suggest you research the iran iraq war and also north korea.
you seriously have an agenda against what is going on. im not saying i wish it would have happened, but you are also siding with an italian press. dont you think italians spin a little bit on their reporting especially against americans?
Posted by 4Art on :
Then you will have no legal objection if they are used in the same manner on Americans, CashCowMoo?
Posted by 4Art on :
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
there was no way to determine who (or if any) the civilians were in Fallujah 4art... that has been made pretty clear... these weps save/d american lives...
Posted by bdgee on :
CashCowMoo,
Calm down, calm,down, there is no reason to get so mad. I did not ever say what you claim I did. You claim. "...its called WILLY P and its not a CHEMICAL WEAPON", as if I had said otherwise.
I quote myself, "...they are not listed as chemical weapons". Maybe you'd do better to read what is there? Next time try reading before you object......makes for a lot less confusion.
And considering how you react to things that don't issue from the Pentagon or the White house, maybe you need to think about who may or may not be "retarded" and who has an agenda. I was mearly pointing out omissions, not siding or advocating on behalf of anyone or anything.
I don't read or speak Itallian. I assume you do, from your declared knowledge of Itallian news. (They do do it in their own language, don't they?) It appears like you have just a wee tiny bit of bias there. Maybe I am wrong.
Perhaps you are right and their news is slanted, but I doubt it could manage ever out "slant" Fox News in reporting bogus palaver as news. Fox News, I'm sure you know, is not owned or operated by an American and is operated in the mold of the owner's European scandle sheets. ((I understand he does speak Itallian. Ever read one of those things? Talk about BS! and twisted faqcts!)
Posted by 4Art on :
bdgee,
Do you realize you are attempting to reason with a person who condones torture?
Good luck with that. Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
Why would I have legal objections if they are used on American troops? They are legal munitions of war.
You overlook that the civilians of Fallujah were warned repeatedly to evaucate. The sections of the Geneva Convention you mention are nulified by that action.
bdgee,
I'm not misinformed, I read the Conventions. I also posted the relevant portions of the Conventions concerning Chemical weapons and specifically white phosphorus and Napalm. If I am misinformed, please provide the evidence which states they are banned.
Posted by HILANDER on :
Bdgee, "bogus palaver" you a Stephen King fan? Just curious because the term palaver is used over and over in the Dark Tower series in reference to conversations and I have never seen it used before outside of a Stephen King novel.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
4art do you have any idea about the atrocities the insurgents do to the iraq people who try to make a better life for their nation? they slaughter them with a dose of mutilation. why are you so hellbent against americans when we have international violations going on...iran, NORTH KOREA, the chinese persecution of its own people. are you so narrow visioned to demonize our nation and soldiers that you cant even notice child suicide bombers forced to blow themselves up by insurgents who steal them from their parents? i know ive seen it happen.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
ALSO as for Fallujah.....for those who are not all knowing of that city....4art wants you to believe that we just set the city on fire wanting to kill kids and children. when what REALLY happened was we gave citizens ....much time to evacuate. the kids the women and men of old and young age. we knew who the bad guys were...if they were so innocent 4art then why was there so much combat in that city? why were the mosques loaded with military weapons? how far would you go to hate this nations military in order to make someone cry tears of sorrow for a islamic jihadist. such a shame
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
4art: "Then you will have no legal objection if they are used in the same manner on Americans, CashCowMoo? "
well one thing is for sure the way you talk im sure YOU wouldnt. if you dont know what manner americans are facing overseas then you shouldnt be here with spin information.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
quote:....4art wants you to believe that we just set the city on fire wanting to kill kids and children. when what REALLY happened was we gave citizens ....much time to evacuate. the kids the women and men of old and young age
They should have gone, where exactly, to the middle of the desert with their children and no food or water?
And remember we're dealing with crazy people so they probably wouldn't have let them go.
Now That's some common sense.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
no master quinn we built huge tent cities for them...and not primative tents either. they were given food and water....more than they have ever had especially under saddams rule. they werent just thrown in the middle of the desert...and some geography for you....fallujah is not in the middle of the desert it is in a fertile area along the euphrates there is good farming in that area. that is why there is such a large population there and it is such a big city. iraqs biggest cities lie on the euphrates and tigris river.
Posted by HILANDER on :
You are quite correct CCM. Also, can you show me what an insurgent looks like. I mean the same guys that were our friends during the day were the same ones shooting at us at night. Too funny, middle of the desert.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
fair enough. I'll check a satellite map (maybe I'll see bin laden on it while I'm over on google).
But... again, they were most likely held against their own will. I doubt if there were so many bad guys that they'd let the women pack up their stuff give em a kiss and let them leave.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
Hilander do you see how I said "fair enough" admitting that calling it a "desert" area was wrong?
Posted by HILANDER on :
A large part of Iraq is desert, but most of it around the Tigris and Euphrates is lush and green. Now the western desert long the Syrian border. That's desert. My point is that there is a lot of bashing going on by folks who have never been there. He** they haven't even been in the military and don't really know what it's like. They lack a true perspective of what is really happening over there. Yet all they do is post this and that about the evil soldiers in Iraq. It's a shame no one can or will say this directly to my face.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
MasterQuinn,
You may be right that some civilians were held against there will. But how is that supposed to affect us?
Do we end hostilities because hostages are being held?
Hostage taking, hiding behind civilians, hiding in schools, churches, mosques, cemetarys are all violations of the Geneva Conventions. The insurgents are not signatories of the conventions, they are not following the conventions. Does that mean we must stop and let them move on to take more hostages elsewhere?
I understand it isn't pleasant but war is not pleasant. Our forces go out of their way to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the local laws of nation in question. When the enemy does not, it is not our fault these civilians die, it is theirs.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
The topic was chemical weapons being used, I'm saying using these types of weapons on cities like this isn't morally right. I DO NOT blame the soldiers, the pilots, the officers on the ground in combat.
It's the administrations fault for putting them in a situation to fight an enemy that does these things. Like we didn't know with this type of urban warfare these things wouldn't happen.
Removing Terrorism will not be won by wars. Overthrowing governments in the islamic world is asking for more then we bargained for.
To have an enemy you need to know the enemy, we don't and never will unless we declare war on people of islam which will never happen.
We need to understand WHY there is terrorism in the first place... I don't believe like the media wants people to that the terroists want to take over the world.
Even the terrorist leaders have said over and over again, they want jerusalem back.
Posted by HILANDER on :
Very well put masterquinn. Others could learn from your example. However, the weapons we used weren't chemical weapons.
Posted by bdgee on :
HILANDER,
I have read some of his stuff, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan. I'll read about anything.
I don't get to "fanish" on any author, but there are some I return to, not so much as a fan, but because I can trust them to deliver good stuff. I'm sure there must be many that are as reliable as those I know, but unknown to me.
Once, on a holiday in a little Alabama town, with almost every pleace closed and locked, in drug store to avoid the biting cold, I looked through the selection of paperbacks in one of those rotating racks. I didn't think any of them was other than stuff designed to titillate the yearnings of highschool girls, but I wanted something to read.
I picked "Report from Engine Company Number 5" and set off to spend the holiday drinking cofee and reading with the TV on across the room. I had stumbled across one of the finest books I have ever read. I had a similar discovery with "Zen and the Art of Motercycle Maintenance" and "Leaving Cheyenne" and so many others.
Posted by 4Art on :
I looked up what "Willy Pete" does to a person when used in that way. Those sure look like chemical burns to me, whatever you want to call the weapon.
quote:Originally posted by HILANDER: Very well put masterquinn. Others could learn from your example. However, the weapons we used weren't chemical weapons.
Posted by HILANDER on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: HILANDER,
I have read some of his stuff, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan. I'll read about anything.
I don't get to "fanish" on any author, but there are some I return to, not so much as a fan, but because I can trust them to deliver good stuff. I'm sure there must be many that are as reliable as those I know, but unknown to me.
Once, on a holiday in a little Alabama town, with almost every pleace closed and locked, in drug store to avoid the biting cold, I looked through the selection of paperbacks in one of those rotating racks. I didn't think any of them was other than stuff designed to titillate the yearnings of highschool girls, but I wanted something to read.
I picked "Report from Engine Company Number 5" and set off to spend the holiday drinking cofee and reading with the TV on across the room. I had stumbled across one of the finest books I have ever read. I had a similar discovery with "Zen and the Art of Motercycle Maintenance" and "Leaving Cheyenne" and so many others.
One of the guys I deployed with was a HUGE King fan. Autographed first editions, limited production runs you name it. In fact, he has #11 I believe of the last book of the Dark Tower series (1 thru 10 go to personal friends und publishers). Anyway, he got me hooked on King. Just thought the whold palaver thing was kind of cool.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Once again, from the Geneva Conventiosns:
chemical weapons
Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke ammunition are not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Posted by 4Art on :
I looked up what "Willy Pete" does to a person when misused in that way. Those sure look like chemical burns to me, whatever you want to call the weapon.
I suppose we could just continue to redefine what the word "torture" means, and then it'll be morally okay too.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
What does torture have to do with a discussion of what is and is not a chemical weapons attack?
The answer, NOTHING.
Posted by 4Art on :
Aragorn243,
What does the name of the weapon have to do with the severity of the victim's suffering?
The answer, NOTHING.
Posted by bdgee on :
HILANDER,
Ya likes the way words are used to twist and turn the heads of emotions and wishes and dreams, ya are a sayin?
Me too! And I like the different ways wordsmiths wrought the raw material to get nuance that hide or make plane what they want us to not see or see.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
Not a thing. Is that the point you are trying to make. I was under the impression that it was to imply that the United States violated the Geneva Conventions.
You did try to make that point several times.
Posted by 4Art on :
Are you referring to the letter or the spirit?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
4Art,
You posted:
"It's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions to use white phosphorous bombs on civilian populations."
That is incorrect in both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Posted by 4Art on :
And a zebra looks grey from a distance.
Posted by HILANDER on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: HILANDER,
Ya likes the way words are used to twist and turn the heads of emotions and wishes and dreams, ya are a sayin?
Me too! And I like the different ways wordsmiths wrought the raw material to get nuance that hide or make plane what they want us to not see or see.
When I first graduated from college I went to work as an insurance adjustor. Now, if you want twisted words written by excellent wordsmiths, try interpreting policy language?!?!?!?!
Posted by bdgee on :
Agreed agreed agreed!
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
The last few posts between "opposing views" on this board sounds like some are actually agreeing more then arguing/debating.
I don't like these. Please argue more. LOL
Posted by Ramius on :
quote:Originally posted by MasterQuinn: The last few posts between "opposing views" on this board sounds like some are actually agreeing more then arguing/debating.
I don't like these. Please argue more. LOL
I agree!!!...Ok, I know, not funny.
Posted by 4Art on :
You're completely correct, Ramius! I agree 100%.
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon' by Peter Popham and Anne Penketh
The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.
Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."
According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."
In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.
The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.
Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.
Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.
"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.
Yesterday Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent in Nassiriya in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city.
I see you are back 4art... the world was a far safer place without you posting your communist agenda.
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
So a US intelligence assessment characterized WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
Imagine my surprise?
[ November 23, 2005, 22:34: Message edited by: Aylobaha Gafuleya ]
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: I see you are back 4art... the world was a far safer place without you posting your communist agenda.
------------------------------------------------- Ole Alibabaa thinks he is a genie...LOL
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
quote:Originally posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya: So a US intelligence assessment characterized WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
Imagine my surprise?
I imagine most everything suprises you.
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
You don't. Muha!
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: I see you are back 4art... the world was a far safer place without you posting your communist agenda.
lol, 4art as communist...
DRQ, you're kidding, right? A good communist would slice up 4art and feed equal portions of his dilletante-self to the downtrodden chickens...
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
good communist?
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? Bible, Malachi 2:10
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: DRQ, you're kidding, right? A good communist would slice up 4art and feed equal portions of his dilletante-self to the downtrodden chickens...
[ November 23, 2005, 23:16: Message edited by: Aylobaha Gafuleya ]
Posted by BuyTex on :
DRQ, lol--helllll yeah...had some fairly solid communist buddies (misguided as they were) who would go out and meet the nazi demonstrators with Louisville sluggers...
Aloha: not familiar with your POV--what's with the "one father, one god" theme?
Are you Andrew playing like you're Muslim?
Posted by LEO on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: ha: not familiar with your POV--what's with the "one father, one god" theme?
Are you Andrew playing like you're Muslim?
Good question
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
Or am I a Muslim playing like I'm Andrew? Hmmm...
Posted by LEO on :
hmmmm....hmmm...
quote:Originally posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya: Or am I a Muslim playing like I'm Andrew? Hmmm...
Posted by bdgee on :
I only had one father. Or had. He passed away some years back.
Posted by BuyTex on :
bdgee: small, minor grammar item that I know you'll appreciate--otherwise would not mention.
"I had ONLY one father."
versus
"I ONLY had..."
is a differrent connotation, suggesting that *you* are singular/unique in having one father--the "rest of us" have more than one fathers...
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya: Or am I a Muslim playing like I'm Andrew? Hmmm...
ya...hmmm!
Posted by Treemoney on :
its 4Aylobaha.
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
I've known families that have had lots of fathers.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: bdgee: small, minor grammar item that I know you'll appreciate--otherwise would not mention.
"I had ONLY one father."
versus
"I ONLY had..."
is a differrent connotation, suggesting that *you* are singular/unique in having one father--the "rest of us" have more than one fathers...
Posted by BuyTex on :
Tree,
roger that... {more below ....}
quote:Originally posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya: I've known families that have had lots of fathers.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: bdgee: small, minor grammar item that I know you'll appreciate--otherwise would not mention.
"I had ONLY one father."
versus
"I ONLY had..."
is a differrent connotation, suggesting that *you* are singular/unique in having one father--the "rest of us" have more than one fathers...
Alibaba:
Dog-sperm/biology can perform as you suggest...we're talking about humans.
Posted by timberman on :
Hmmm. So all you have to do when your banned is change your name huh.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: bdgee: small, minor grammar item that I know you'll appreciate--otherwise would not mention.
"I had ONLY one father."
versus
"I ONLY had..."
is a differrent connotation, suggesting that *you* are singular/unique in having one father--the "rest of us" have more than one fathers...
I do see your point and do appreciate it, as you surmised. However, I never wanted to imply a difference between myself and "the "rest of us"". Indeed, I was hoping to press the point that we are all the same....just one father, just one mother and we all put our pants on one leg at a time ('cept of course, women that Congress orter quit wastin time about tryin to make laws about who orter get married and do somphin impotent and get us a law that says women and girls hasn't no business wearin pants).
Posted by BuyTex on :
lol, bdgee...
simply making a sentence-structure point--don't get me into that gay thang...my ex is queerer than upside-down barb-wire
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
holy crap... two dads and now upside down barb wire? I knew I never should have quit drinking
Posted by bdgee on :
Hmmmmm? Me, I never knowd bob-warr had a bottom an a top........didn't knowd I was treddin on no gay thang nuthur....
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: lol, bdgee...
simply making a sentence-structure point--don't get me into that gay thang...my ex is queerer than upside-down barb-wire
------------------------------------------------- Now thats the worst case of buyers remorse I've seen in sometime.
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
Apparently so.
quote:Originally posted by timberman: Hmmm. So all you have to do when your banned is change your name huh.
Posted by mjm2005 on :
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: If this video doesn't move you, you have a heart of stone.
I was horrified by the line- "it burned the flesh, but left the clothes intact"... and that they attacked woman and children...
Posted by Aylobaha Gafuleya on :
quote:Originally posted by mjm2005: I was horrified by the line- "it burned the flesh, but left the clothes intact"... and that they attacked woman and children...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)