board77

At this point, Iavas, you really do demonstrate you only have one side in your mind. I could hand you documented proof and you would still scream the US is evil and lying. You don't care about what is right, you only care about people agreeing with you, whether you are right or wrong.

*sigh*

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Also, Iraqis were NOT blowing up their own citizens before the US trundled in. The causality is as clear as night and day.

Sure, they were just torturing them and killing anyone that disagreed with them...

If you can't recognize the total backwardsness of blaming the US for terrorists blowing up their own citizens, you're beyond meaningful discussion.

Do you think they can only get suicide bombers close to US troops? You don't think maybe they could attack ONLY the soldiers? They could, but they don't want to. They want to TERRORIZE. They want the iraqi people to give up their new freedom out of fear, and let the nutcases run things again.

It's not going to happen, because the US is going to be there until the job is done. And that's the only way to do it.

You think people are upset now? This is nothing. Go read about 1968 and you'll see how crazy things can get. We're fighting a battle with terrorists, and only people who let their irrational hatred of Bush blind them think we're in vietnam.

Iavas,
The only thing I can think of that would produce bodies like in those stills with the clothes still intact is decomposition. If you look closely at the one with his hand blown off, it appears that his shirt is covered in maggots. It takes at least a week or more for maggots to get to the crawling stage.

I'm pretty sure the skin discolors after a while, too, because they said that in New Orleans when they were cleaning up the bodies, they had trouble even telling who was black or white.

Dessication would account for leathery skin, too.

Try to see outside the box. These corpses might just be victims of car bombings or some other disaster.

Fixer - not sure why you're getting emotional here. I've pointed out facts about the video, and you don't seem to be able to argue them. If you think I don't care about the truth, point out where I'm contradicting it.


MH,

Quote:

Try to see outside the box. These corpses might just be victims of car bombings or some other disaster.

Your loyalty is admirable, I'll give you that. But it is confining you, not me. You will never admit to atrocities carried out by your past profession.

So, no one involved considered that it could just be decomposition and wasn't worth making a film about? Yeah right - to start with they'd have to be incredibly stupid if the images could be so easily discounted. I've never seen decomposing bodies that look like that (they've always been green/purple in colour).


hal,

Quote:

Sure, they were just torturing them and killing anyone that disagreed with them...

He he.. sounds just like another countries military too.

Quote:

If you can't recognize the total backwardsness of blaming the US for terrorists blowing up their own citizens, you're beyond meaningful discussion.

Okay, I'll blame the terrorists, and I'll aim lots of guns at them and try to kill them all. Sure, I'll take down plenty of ordinary citizens too, but I'm sure they'd much rather die from an American bomb than an Iraqi one, so it's okay.

Quote:

They want to TERRORIZE. They want the iraqi people to give up their new freedom out of fear, and let the nutcases run things again.

WE are terrorizing them. 100,000 dead. They have more chance of being killed by the US than by the insurgents.

where is this 100,000 number from? Oh, yes, the international media that includes all iraqis, including enemy combatants and insurgents.

The civilian casualties is closer to 30,000. Yes, it's just as horrible, but lets at least use the right numbers.

As of now, to say iraqis are more likely to be killed by US troops than the terrorists is incorrect. Most of the iraqi citizens recognize that we are there trying to protect them.

Today, the terrorist blew up a restaurant frequented by Iraqi police. NOT the US, but the people there to keep order and protect.


The fundamental problem arguing from your position, Iavas, is that you ASSUME The US government is corrupt and out for their own personal profit, and look for evidenc of that, and slant everything to be negative towards the US government.

A better way to observe such events is through common sense. What makes sense, and what does not make sense. Which makes more sense, that the US government would stage terrorist attacks to kill innocent civilians, or that the terrorists who have sworn to kill every last one of us would blow people up to try and get a few of us?

Quote:

Which makes more sense, that the US government would stage terrorist attacks to kill innocent civilians, or that the terrorists who have sworn to kill every last one of us would blow people up to try and get a few of us?

I'm sure Hitler could have used the same arguement, and you would have fallen for it because you refuse to believe it could happen in your homeland.

Quote:

The fundamental problem arguing from your position, Iavas, is that you ASSUME The US government is corrupt and out for their own personal profit, and look for evidenc of that, and slant everything to be negative towards the US government.

No hal. If you remember, I supported conservatives right up to last years election. So why would I suddenly start ASSUMING they were corrupt, when that was not in my nature for 26 years? It was EVIDENCE that changed my mind. And now, with the White House corruption starting to come full circle, you can hardly argue that my "assumptions" were bad ones.

(The 100,000 comes from the most comprehensive study done to calculate the figure. Obviously, if the Pentagon shoots down that study and uses one they prefer, you will believe them)

um, no, I didn't get the 30,000 number from the pentagon. the 100,000 number includes enemy combatants and insurgents. Find me somewhere that says 100,000 civilians killed by US troops and I'll start looking at it.

You've moved into comparing me to a nazi, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it a day. I do NOT blindly follow anyone. I'm probably more pissed off about real things that Bush has done than you are at imagined ones. The evidence you champion is not really evidence. It is conspiracy theories fueled by peoples hatred of Bush. The root of it is the insane theory that Bush was responsible for killing 3000 americans on 9/11.

hal, you are right to call it a day, because your entire arguement is built of straw men (like me comparing you to a nazi )

You are also calling ideas insane that have happened (or nearly happened) in the past! (Have you ever commented on the politicians who drafted Northwoods?) You are the one who has a conspiracy theory (that arabs controlled by a mastermind in a cave managed to fly planes they'd never flown before with military precision through what was supposed to be the most well defended air space in the world), and who simply will not consider any evidence to the contrary.

Oh and lookie here..

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon

It appears Iavas was right -

U.S. official admits phosphorus used as weapon in Iraq

From the article:

Quote:

High-ranking U.S. officials had earlier insisted that the substance, which can burn skin to the bone, was used only to help illuminate battle scenes.

"U.S. forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons," the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, wrote in a letter to the Independent newspaper.

But:

Quote:

An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed.

Also:

Quote:

Venable's comments could expose the United States to allegations that it has been using chemical weapons in Iraq.

The suspicion that former president Saddam Hussein was developing chemical weapons, as well as biological and nuclear ones, was one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the 2003 invasion of the Persian Gulf country.

Bastards.

**skims through page

**reads one of Iavas's posts

I invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is dead.

I hate to say I told you so, but the military has had to admit it lied (thanks to pressure from the blogs) when it first denied using WP as a weapon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Quote:

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.

Quote:

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

Quote:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 440664.stm

Quote:

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Jude wrote:

Quote:

An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed.

The Italian reporter who was nearly killed by US troops was investigating this story when that incident took place (I'm sure Iavas will make much of that --it *is* an awfully big coincidence, but still...)

Another barbaric weapon used on Falluja?

Thermobaric Weapon Also Used in Fallujah

Quote:

The Italian reporter who was nearly killed by US troops was investigating this story when that incident took place (I'm sure Iavas will make much of that

I already knew it, and yes, I suspect it was linked.


The story is now headline news on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

Quote:

With the discovery of a torture bunker at Iraq's Interior Ministry in Baghdad, and the admission that U.S. forces used burning phosphorus weapons during their assault on Falluja a year ago, which officials had earlier denied, both parties are struggling for legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis, analysts say.

I would like to point out (see bolded part), that this incident proves you should never instantly believe the governments response to allegations against them.

Report drops Fallujah bombshell

Quote:

The controversy over the American use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in Fallujah deepened yesterday when it was revealed that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP as a "chemical weapon".

So, when an enemy uses WP for combat, the US has no qualms about calling it a chemical weapon, but when they use it themselves for combat, heaven forbid that the term be used!

WP is a chemical weapon when civilians are involved. So the question is, did the US suspect that civilians would be killed by the WP they rained down on Fallujah? If they did suspect that, they used a chemical weapon.

IF they called it a chemical weapon when Saddam used it, they were wrong.

Calling white phosporus a chemical weapon is like calling propane gas the same thing as arsenic.

One burns.

The other poisons.

They are not the same thing and your thread title is completely innacurate.

If you change it to something like "The US used flaming, nasty white phosporus to horribly kill people" I would have no quarrel with you whatsoever.

It is the inaccuracy of your statement that bothers me, not the fact that you are accusing the US of something horrible. I'm used to that!

There are three classes of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological and chemical. You are using a mischaracterization to inflate the charges against the US, and I find that .... unpleasant. The fact that they are using WP against ground forces is sufficiently bad ALL ON ITS OWN that it doesn't need inflating.

Puffing it up by putting it into a false catagory, just distracts the people who know the difference into a debate about semantics instead of a debate about whether or not incendiarys ought to be used in a situation where civilians might be around.

How many times have I reposted the phrase "incendiaries are not chemical weapons" in this thread? instead of debating whether or not we should be using incendiaries.

The fact that you keep calling "red" "blue" infuriates me to the point where I can't do anything but call you on the the fact that you are using the wrong terminology.

If you really want to talk about the actual use of WP instead of insisting on using incorrect, distracting terminology- then you might want to consider changing the thread title. Otherwise, I'm staying out of here.

Maria the poster, not the ranger.

Maria, I am not the only one considering if it constitutes a chemical weapon. I'll requote for you from the articles above, which you seem to have ignored:

Quote:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Quote:

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Clearly, it is a matter for debate, and your view is not the only view. If you are so convinced you're right, perhaps you should write to Professor Rogers and tell him he's got it completely wrong.

Maria, I'll also reply to a comment you made in the other thread:

Quote:

You didn't prove me wrong, though.

Let's look back at some of your earlier comments..

Quote:

An assault using WP missiles or grenades would NOT show up as lights halfway between the helicoptors and the ground.

Wrong. It WAS an assault.

Quote:

However, if some WP was being used as an offensive weapon, there would be no bone left. And certainly no clothes.

Wrong. It WAS used offensively.

Quote:

At most, I'd say you have here some flares gone wrong.

Wrong.

Quote:

As for something that would "burn" the skin and leave clothes alone, poison ivy comes to mind. Thats a plant oil allergen that causes the skin to blister and drip pus. A bad enough case would look like a burn. (Yes, I've had cases that bad!) I'm not saying they've got a bad case of poison ivy - just that perhaps there are other allergens out there that produce the same effect.

Grasping at straws.

Quote:

The only thing I can think of that would produce bodies like in those stills with the clothes still intact is decomposition.

More straws (not that there wasn't some decomposition occuring).

Quote:

Try to see outside the box. These corpses might just be victims of car bombings or some other disaster.

Now you know that WP was used offensively, do you stand by this comment?


I have also proved you wrong in thinking WP cannot possibly fit the definition of a chemical weapon, as there are experts saying it can. It is a matter of personal interpretation of the definition, in the same way that something like the US constitution can be interpreted in different ways (or the wording of our own charter!)

Iavas, you're thread title is incidiary and not accurately representing the question. WP weapons are not illegal, as is assumed when you say "chemical weapons"

That is the simple thing MariaHobbit is protesting

Furthermore, your whole point for this thread was to fuel the fire that teh US is somehow doing something horrifying and outside "acceptable warfare." WP are not. They're a weapon of war. All weapons of war are horrifying and evil. civilians die in war.

As long as we're at war, horrible weapons will be used, and civilians will die. This is the nature of war. you want to protest the war. Fine. But do not make the US out to be an evil entity for waging the war in the way they must to try and minimize loss of life and property.

Instead of WP, they could have leveled the buildings or the whole area. They were trying to do things in a better way. Saying they used "chemical weapons" is inflammitory even if SOME people think they could be called that. It has connotations that should not be attatched in this type of discussion.

You are just spoiling for a fight, aren't you, Iavas!

Most of what I said that you quoted above was a guess, and I thought I was pretty clear about that.

The only thing I'm sure about is that incendiaries are not chemical weapons, no matter how many ridiculous people call them that.

That's all.

Nerve gas causes people to fall down dead. That is a chemical weapon. You don't see it coming, you don't even know it's hit you until you are already dying. It is an entirely different thing than something that explodes and burns and kills you. Completely different catagory.

Your sources are calling apples oranges and I'm not buying it. And now, I really will stay out of this thread. I hope you find some new atrocity to rename your thread after soon. I'm really tired of this title.

MH, you just keep repeating yourself without addressing the relevant quotes:

Quote:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Quote:

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

I'll keep repeating these until you can discredit them (and simply repeating that you believe WP is only an incendiary doesn't cut it).


hal,

Quote:

WP weapons are not illegal, as is assumed when you say "chemical weapons"

Not illegal when used for illumination.. but they could be if their toxic properties are employed as a weapon against civilians.

Quote:

Furthermore, your whole point for this thread was to fuel the fire that teh US is somehow doing something horrifying and outside "acceptable warfare." WP are not. They're a weapon of war.

That's not what the US claimed when the allegation about WP in Fallujah first surfaced. They denied that it had been used offensively, claiming it was only used for illumination.

Why would they lie about its use if it was a perfectly acceptable offensive weapon, as you claim?

Quote:

But do not make the US out to be an evil entity for waging the war in the way they must to try and minimize loss of life and property.

WP does not minimise loss of life and can kill indiscriminantly over a wide area. You must be joking if you think they picked WP in the interests of the Iraqi people rather than their own.

Quote:

Saying they used "chemical weapons" is inflammitory even if SOME people think they could be called that.

The US military itself thinks WP can be called a chemical weapon!! Of course, that's only when Saddam is using it. Context is important you know.

Quote:

It has connotations that should not be attatched in this type of discussion.

But the connotations are fine when it's someone the US doesn't like..

By it's OWN classification, the US military used what can be called a chemical weapon. They knowingly used something they had identified as barbaric when used by someone else.

I guess you approve of torture too, as long as you think it's keeping you safer?