posted
I trust we will be satisfied with our government's definition of what is and isn't "torture" and what are and are not "chemical weapons" when the same standards are applied to our troops.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Absolutely, I'm looking forward to your insight.
------------------------------------------------- It's not insight your going to get.... Leave the Viet Nam Vets out of your personal agenda, your really pissing people off.
I am getting phone calls about you, and when I say drop it, I advise you to do so..
IP: Logged |
posted
Why would someone not even try to comprehend anothers perception of the world we live in yet have a comment on something, making assumptions about their thoughts or reasons for doing something?
When you see a parent in the parking lot, and their kids screaming at them, what do you think?
The parent doesnt know what they are doing, they are hurting their child etc etc.
Change your perception.. If you have kids you know what I mean (and even then you'll still jump to conclusions about the persons motives and why they are acting like they are acting).
More times then not you'll realize you actually agree with the person in some sense and understand that person(s) is not attempting to slight who you think or what you think they really are.
4art is not attacking any vets. If you say a VETS voice matters, then you can not say anothers doesn't. It is the way THEY perceived what happened or how they feel about it.
Because 10 said something happened and 10 other said it didn't. What matters is WHY they were there for it to happen.
Get to the root of the problem not the result of the problem.
Otherwise you're doing nothing to solve the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Like terrorism.. What is all of the terrorism based on?
Look at isreal and palenstein and go back through history and look at why the muslims want Jeruselum BACK.
Ask any psychologist. Find the root of the problem and WHY the results of it are happening, otherwise you're WASTING YOUR TIME.
IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks again, MasterQuinn. We're certainly on the same wavelength on this subject!
quote:Originally posted by MasterQuinn: Why would someone not even try to comprehend anothers perception of the world we live in yet have a comment on something, making assumptions about their thoughts or reasons for doing something?
When you see a parent in the parking lot, and their kids screaming at them, what do you think?
The parent doesnt know what they are doing, they are hurting their child etc etc.
Change your perception.. If you have kids you know what I mean (and even then you'll still jump to conclusions about the persons motives and why they are acting like they are acting).
More times then not you'll realize you actually agree with the person in some sense and understand that person(s) is not attempting to slight who you think or what you think they really are.
4art is not attacking any vets. If you say a VETS voice matters, then you can not say anothers doesn't. It is the way THEY perceived what happened or how they feel about it.
Because 10 said something happened and 10 other said it didn't. What matters is WHY they were there for it to happen.
Get to the root of the problem not the result of the problem.
Otherwise you're doing nothing to solve the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Like terrorism.. What is all of the terrorism based on?
Look at isreal and palenstein and go back through history and look at why the muslims want Jeruselum BACK.
Ask any psychologist. Find the root of the problem and WHY the results of it are happening, otherwise you're WASTING YOUR TIME.
posted
I know 4 art is not attacking vets, if he was I would not even bother to try and answer him. I try and answer in a simple and short way when there is no short or simple way, just like we all do.
IP: Logged |
posted
Could you let Dusty know that, before he has me killed? LOL
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I know 4 art is not attacking vets, if he was I would not even bother to try and answer him. I try and answer in a simple and short way when there is no short or simple way, just like we all do.
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Could you let Dusty know that, before he has me killed? LOL
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I know 4 art is not attacking vets, if he was I would not even bother to try and answer him. I try and answer in a simple and short way when there is no short or simple way, just like we all do.
------------------------------------------------- I don't kill folks, just send them prickly pear cactus when they are starving. LOL
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MasterQuinn: Why would someone not even try to comprehend anothers perception of the world we live in yet have a comment on something, making assumptions about their thoughts or reasons for doing something?
When you see a parent in the parking lot, and their kids screaming at them, what do you think?
The parent doesnt know what they are doing, they are hurting their child etc etc.
Change your perception.. If you have kids you know what I mean (and even then you'll still jump to conclusions about the persons motives and why they are acting like they are acting).
More times then not you'll realize you actually agree with the person in some sense and understand that person(s) is not attempting to slight who you think or what you think they really are.
4art is not attacking any vets. If you say a VETS voice matters, then you can not say anothers doesn't. It is the way THEY perceived what happened or how they feel about it.
Because 10 said something happened and 10 other said it didn't. What matters is WHY they were there for it to happen.
Get to the root of the problem not the result of the problem.
Otherwise you're doing nothing to solve the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Like terrorism.. What is all of the terrorism based on?
Look at isreal and palenstein and go back through history and look at why the muslims want Jeruselum BACK.
Ask any psychologist. Find the root of the problem and WHY the results of it are happening, otherwise you're WASTING YOUR TIME.
Quinn...I agree with most of this. Here's the part I disagree with...
"Because 10 said something happened and 10 other said it didn't. What matters is WHY they were there for it to happen."
Here's the problem...when you're(we're, or whoever)talking about events that did or did not happen, the truth is important. Perception or perspective doesn't change what did or did not happen.
The only reason I'm saying this is because it seems that in the arguments for and against the war we're seeing a lot of half truths, semi-reliable accounts, and situations taken out of context.
IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the entire video, although I admit a few times I had to turn the sound off because I"m at work and didn't want to disturb those around me.
I'm not calling anybody a liar, but taking this account as "the way it happened" is narrow minded.
It could all very well be true, but here's why I'm skeptical.
1. The source website pasted here on Allstocks is "The information clearing house", with a tag line, "news you won't find on CNN". There's probably a reason we won't find this news on CNN; can't be substantiated? unreliable sources? I don't know.
2. All of the pictures of the "melted" bodied didn't appear melted to me at all. They looked like dead bodies which were badly decomposed, which may explain why the skin was "melted", but the clothes were intact.
3. One of the ex soldiers speaking said he heard the order over the radio that the phosphorus was going to be used in Fallujah. I don't think he said the order specified it was going to be used as a weapon. As stated elsewhere, the phosphorus is normally used to illuminate a dark sky.
4. If they did use it as a weapon, how did they ensure that all US soldiers were "clear" before using it. In a battle zone with fire fights going on would this be difficult?
5. Is it possible that some civilian did get some of the phosphorus on them due to a mis-fire into sky, or wind blowing the wrong way, or some other unintentional means.
Just my point of view, I may be wrong.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the BBC's Article on the same video.
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq
Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.
Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city.
The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.
WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) Protocol III not signed by US
Transmission of the documentary comes a day after the arrival of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on a five-day official visit to Italy.
It also coincides with the first anniversary of the US-led assault on Falluja, which displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
The documentary was shown on Rai's rolling news channel, with a warning that the some of the footage was disturbing.
The future of the 3,000-strong Italian eacekeeping contingent in Iraq is the subject of a political tug-of-war, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.
'Destroyed evidence'
The documentary begins with formerly classified footage of the Americans using napalm bombs during the Vietnam war.
It then shows a series of photographs from Falluja of corpses with the flesh burnt off but clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.
Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.
"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.
Last December, the US state department issued a denial of what it called "widespread myths" about the use of illegal weapons in Falluja.
"Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," the US statement said.
However, the Rai film also alleges that Washington has systematically attempted to destroy filmed evidence of the alleged use of white phosphorus on civilians in Falluja.
Italian public opinion has been consistently against the war and the Rai documentary can only reinforce calls for a pullout of Italian soldiers as soon as possible, our correspondent says.
Both the Italian government and opposition leaders are talking about a phased withdrawal in 2006.
President Talabani and the US say the continued presence of multi-national forces in Iraq is essential.
US used white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians-report
By Phil Stewart
ROME (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq have used incendiary white phosphorus against civilians and a firebomb similar to napalm against military targets, Italian state-run broadcaster RAI reported on Tuesday.
A RAI documentary showed images of bodies recovered after a November 2004 offensive by U.S. troops on the town of Falluja, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against men, women and children who were burned to the bone.
"I do know that white phosphorus was used," said Jeff Englehart in the RAI documentary, which identified him as a former soldier in the U.S. 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.
The U.S. military says white phosphorus is a conventional weapon and says it does not use any chemical arms.
"Burned bodies. Burned children and burned women," said Englehart, who RAI said had taken part in the Falluja offensive. "White phosphorus kills indiscriminately."
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said he did not recall white phosphorus being used in Falluja. "I do not recall the use of white phosphorus during the offensive operations in Falluja in the fall of 2004," Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan said.
An incendiary device, white phosphorus is used by the military to conceal troop movements with smoke, mark targets or light up combat areas. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980.
The United States did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention, a U.N. official in New York said.
The Falluja offensive aimed to crush followers of al Qaeda's Iraq leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said to have linked up with local insurgents in the Sunni Arab city west of Baghdad.
Some Western newspapers reported at the time that white phosporus had been used during the offensive.
In the documentary called "Falluja: The Hidden Massacre", RAI also said U.S. forces used the Mark 77 firebomb, a weapon similar to napalm, on military targets in Iraq in 2003.
It cited a letter it said came from British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram, claiming 30 MK 77 weapons were used on military targets in Iraq between March 31 and April 2, 2003.
Italy has nearly 3,000 troops in Iraq despite strong opposition to their presence there.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is trailing in opinion polls ahead of April elections, and his center-left rivals have vowed to eventually pull troops out of Iraq.
posted
I posted this on the other thread but since there appear to be two identical topics on the same subject I'll post it here as well.
Note: According to the Geneva Conventions, the Law of war, neither napalm or white phosphorus are chemical weapons.
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 (Ł14 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.
IP: Logged |
posted
New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm
By Ben Cubby August 8, 2003
The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name 'Napalm', but a similar sticky, inflammable substance known as 'fuel-gel mixture', contained in weapons called Mark-77 fire bombs, was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the war.
"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said.
Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the fuel-gel mixture in the Mark-77s had "similar destructive characteristics."
"Many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark-77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar," he said.
On March 22nd, correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was travelling with the US Marines, had reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border. Murdoch's account was based on statements by two US Marine Corps officers on the ground.
Lieutenant-Commander Jeff A. Davis, USN, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense (Public Affairs) had called Murdoch's story "patently false".
"The US took napalm out of service in the 1970's. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Commander Davis told smh online. He was apparently referring to Vietnam-era Napalm-B, which consisted of inflammable fuel thickened with polystyrene and benzene.
The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.
Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.
Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.
Ms. Toni McNeal, a spokesperson for Rock Island Arsenal, in Illinois, said the facility is currently producing a further 500 Mark-77s for the US Marine Corps.
She said she did not consider the Mark-77s to be napalm bombs.
But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.
A US Navy public affairs document dated 22/10/99 says that the US Navy no longer uses napalm but "the US Marine Corps has a requirement and uses it at ranges at Yuma and Twenty-Nine Palms."
Twenty-Nine Palms, in California, is the home base of some of the Marine Corps units that took part in the attack on Safwan Hill in Iraq.
Captain Robert Crum, USMC, Public Affairs spokesman for Twenty-Nine Palms, said: "Mk 77s are not routinely used in training at 29 Palms. Yet it would be inappropriate to say that they are never - or never would be - used in training here.
"The average young Marine may be unfamiliar with the technical nomenclature, and probably does refer to this munition by the vernacular 'napalm'."
posted
The usual reason for not finding a report on CNN is because it wasn't edited or oked by the Republican National Committee. Certainly reliability is a major concern at CNN and when they discover a reliable source that isn't far right wing, they lie aout it and deny knowledge.
Phosphorous, when used to illuminate the dark sky is not in the place that is to be illuminated, but far far above it. Those artillery rounds have other descriptions and are not refered to as phosphorous and would not be said to be "in" the place, but over it. Some tracer rounds also use phosphorous, but the common soldier does not speak of those as phosphorous (and probably has no idea what causes them to light up). There is no other reasonable or practical use for phosphorous, as phosphorous, in open battle, unless it is what is supposed. If they said "in the town" it is unreasonable to contrive some other meaning or intent, they meant "in the town" not over it, near it or some other innocent thing.
In Order to make sure that your own soldiers were clear of the area, so as not to get hurt by the stuff, it would be sensable to tell them that phosphorous was going to be used in the area so they could get away from it. Surely if they did, it is reasonable to learn from one of them that he heard that phosphorous was to be used theere.
It is crtainly possible that some civilian got phosphorous on them due to "mis-fire into sky, or wind blowing the wrong way, or some other unintentional means". But only if there was pohosphorous being used there in the first place.
Yes,
"Just (your) point of view, I may be wrong."
And so also may your view be wrong when you see that "the pictures of the "melted" bodied didn't appear melted to me at all." Maybe you didn't want to see what was there? Maybe you are right, but it sure doesn't look to be so.
But consider, what if what you want to be true is not and it is exactly what it appears to be to others?
IP: Logged |
I always check foreign news sources. The US media is generally much too "embedded" (ie. "in bed") with the corporate world and various agencies of the government.
You can occasionally get some good reporting on PBS, although the FCC is has taken steps to minimize even that.
IP: Logged |
posted
4 Art- The problem with a lot of us veterans is we lost our innocence about war a long time ago. It is not a good thing it just happens. I'm glad people have this innocence, hopefully more people can keep it. But if you think some video is going to shock many of us, it not, because we have seen much worse up close and personnel. The closest we can get you to this would be 911 and that was just 1 day. Even the soldiers that think there ready to go to war after all their training are never ready for the true reality when it comes. It usually takes many months before they really know what's going on that was why the casuality rate was so much higher in Vietnam in the first 3 months in country. That's why they called them FNG's
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL
