It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This thread is insane.

Nuclear weapons used in Fallujah


And all the observers on the ground that were just looking for the U.S. to screw up and do something they could shout about never noticed?


And all the satellites in orbit for the purpose of detecting nuclear weapons being used didn't notice anything either?


And nobody in Fallujah doing this
due to radiation poisoning?

Quoted by Dr. who?




posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
This thread is insane.

Nuclear weapons used in Fallujah


And all the observers on the ground that were just looking for the U.S. to screw up and do something they could shout about never noticed?


And all the satellites in orbit for the purpose of detecting nuclear weapons being used didn't notice anything either?


And nobody in Fallujah doing this
due to radiation poisoning?

Quoted by Dr. who?


Your exactly right centurion
That was the whole idea of posting about Al-Jazeera. To make the point of how ludicrous its statements can be.

Hell, some people actually believe it though



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
it is known that insurgents kill randomly,mutilate the bodies,throw them on to the streets and than point a finger at the US.Same thing happened in Fallujah.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
The sick part of this thread is that people actually want to believe that the US used nukes.

They WANT the US to use nukes just so that they may say "look at how evil the US is".

They will believe anything if it makes the US look evil.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I saw a cute photo in a paper with a few squaddies (uk for grunt) going up some stairs in an appartment building armed with... FLAMETHROWERS!!

The caption said: "US soldiers seaching houses in fallujah"

LOL



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
What a ridiculous thread.

There are so many things wrong with the comments made in the original post.

1. Nuclear Weapons used? No way. To many countries have the means to detect detonations elsewhere on the planet. WIth so many countries and people itching for a reason to criticize the US, one of those nations would be screaming and jumping up and down about it.

2. Use of "Banned Weapons"? No such thing in war, short of NBC's, at least in practical terms. ("What does G-13 do Tommy?")

3. "we would have been told if..." : Get real. We are told less than half of what is going on in a war zone.

4. Who takes Al-jezeera seriously anyway? (Here in the West I mean)

.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag

Who takes Al-jezeera seriously anyway? (Here in the West I mean)




Judging by many of the posts I've seen of late...about 80% of ATS members.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
What a ridiculous thread.

There are so many things wrong with the comments made in the original post.

1. Nuclear Weapons used? No way. To many countries have the means to detect detonations elsewhere on the planet. WIth so many countries and people itching for a reason to criticize the US, one of those nations would be screaming and jumping up and down about it.

2. Use of "Banned Weapons"? No such thing in war, short of NBC's, at least in practical terms. ("What does G-13 do Tommy?")

3. "we would have been told if..." : Get real. We are told less than half of what is going on in a war zone.

4. Who takes Al-jezeera seriously anyway? (Here in the West I mean)

.


Your wrong about it being a ridiculous thread. Try reading my first line on opening this thread. Quote:Heres another ridiculous post from A- Jazeera. End quote

I have said it before and will say it again. The whole point of this thread was to show how ridiculous Al-Jazeera can be.

I never stated that nukes were used. I stated that Al-Jazeera had made the comments.

I tend to find reading all the posts usually helps me before i make any posting. That way i can be certain i am replying in context to the topic.

See the post for what it is, and not what Al-Jazeera has published as the truth.
Jeeeeeez


[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
In Case you guys missed my links in my last post...


"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war.

Whay are you guys still debating what we have already admitted to doing?



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
In Case you guys missed my links in my last post...


"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war.

Whay are you guys still debating what we have already admitted to doing?


Ok, what part of this thread "another ridiculous post by Al-Jazeera" dont you understand?

Read the links, read the whole thread.

Seems like i am repeating myself every post because people post without reading the whole thing!



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Oh ok, that's odd because I could have sworn the topic was about the US using Banned Weapons. Which we did.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I thought so too, we did use banned weapons and as for the reporters there, from all the reports I am hearing they stay locked inside their hotel rooms getting info from the Iraqie people at the hotel who do go out, the reporters are afraid to go out for fear of getting shot or kidnapped. I have heard we used banned weapons not nukes, there is a difference.
This is almost a disinformation campaign, I see how it works, you guys are so focused on the fact that we did not use nukes you have totally overlooked the fact that we did use banned weapons.

[edit on 17-3-2005 by goose]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
as far as I know, there are no rules when it comes to dealing with terrorists or any other cult that is not internationally recognised as a legitimate military organization!?

mainly because they are not bound by any laws of engagement.

if you ask me, our troops are being TOO humane, compared to those we are up against!

As for the innocent, when there is a war or any type of military/police conflict- the innocent stay out of the way, so if they know that is going on around them, they should stay in their homes and take cover- if their homes are in the middle of it all, they should seek help in finding a safe place to be. If their home is destroyed, you can bet the farm that we will foot the bill in their aide or replacement.

I would hate to be there, not knowing who the enemy is- and I would take anyone out that I thought was a threat (most people would, that have been in that situation). If there is a family in their house, and no bullets are coming from it - I wouldnt see that as a threat! If they are running around in a battle zone, I would assume they were up to no good.

I could care less what they use against the murderous terrorists that place absolutely no value in human life, be it theirs or anyone elses. If any of them ever end up on my doorstep, and if the only way I can defend myself is to burn them to death with my cigarette- a week later they will be dead, and I will need to buy more smokes!



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The USA used both napalm and Depleted Uranium rounds, both of which are banned weapons according to the Geneva Convention, so no big deal if this one's fake, there are other truths that are just as harsh.

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.ilcaonline.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
So the only people affected by the banned weapons are terrorists and its ok to do them all in. You said yourself that it would be hard to tell who is who. The civilians live there they are in a war zone and there is no wheres to go, they have to go out into the streets for work, food, medical care, etc.. There are international laws about war crimes and treatment of POW's and though some people might not think we should abide by them, there is one good reason to do so, in hopes your own POW's might come home alive and also for future POW's in other wars, what we do in the world is noticed and will affect the future POW's. While I am very aware that the military over there is in a very difficult situation and have total sympathy for them I also have a great deal of sympathy for the 100,000 Iraqie civilians killed in this war, the POW's being tortured and as many as 26 have died in American custody. there are reports that children as young as 8 years of age are being held as POW's. There is a fine line to walk, we can't justify holding children as POW's and we can't justify all out slaughter and the use of banned weapons just because we are in a war zone.
Below are two excerpts from a news report, you might want to check out the whole article.
www.democracynow.org.../03/16/1458222
Military: 26 Prisoners Murdered In U.S. Custody Overseas
The Army and Navy has revealed that 26 prisoners have been killed while in the custody of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of the cases military investigators have concluded or suspect the deaths were acts of criminal homicide. This according to the New York Times
also
Officer Jailed 45 Days For Tossing Iraqis In River
Meanwhile a U.S. army platoon leader was sentenced Tuesday to 45 days in military prison. Lieutenant Jack Saville pleaded guilty that he ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River. One of the prisoners has never been found and is believed to have drowned



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Sorry BikerEddie. I didnt mean to say that YOU were being stupid. I was referring to the accusations made by Al-jezeera.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Little known fact I learned from a presentation by some law prof at a non-lethal weapons conference back a few years ago:
Military use of tear gas is prohibited by some Chem / Biochem weapons treaty that was signed during the Clinton admin. Police use of tear gas is OK.

Sometimes 'banned weapons' is a little less sinister than the name implies.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

as posted by Jakomo
The USA used both napalm and Depleted Uranium rounds, both of which are banned weapons according to the Geneva Convention, so no big deal if this one's fake, there are other truths that are just as harsh.

As such, Jakomo, is the US signatory to said Geneva Conventions pertaining to those munitions restrictions you mention? Nevermind....apparently, you think the US did.
U.S. ADMITS NAPALM USE(2003)


But since we are taking the accounts of AlJazeera and other like sources into account, why not take into account the US official response. I mean disinformation merits disinformation, right?

Is the U.S. Using "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?



seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
Sorry BikerEddie. I didnt mean to say that YOU were being stupid. I was referring to the accusations made by Al-jezeera.



No problem Black Flag
Apology accepted.

Glad we got it sorted



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join