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.

 

Statement from Falluja: 5000 were killed by USA chemical weapons in Falluja-

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
www.albasrah.net... tm

[edit on 17-4-2005 by almasad]




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Is this democracy?
ok ... look to democracy
hhhhhhhhhhhhhh



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Some people will believe anything, especialy if its accusations against the U.S, The photos show nothing but dead people on the ground, The photo had to have been taken by someone and i doubt an insurgent could get that close, looks to me like somone googled images from iraq, then put em on a webpage and made up some bs, The insugents seem to be fully capable of filming themselves doing the most moronic things, yet they cant seem to actualy film these "crimes" being commited, 5000 people? and you mean to tell me not one insurgent managed to actualy film this?

They got video of a man telling about what hapened, they got pics of dead people, They got everything EXCEPT proof, They claim to have it, but surpirse surprise its nowhere to be found, so until i see the poof, im calling BS.

Just like ALL of you should.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
OK, I'll bite and reply...

Quote from article above:

1. The US army bombards Falluja with poisoned gases and chemical weapons

I think the author has confused tear gas, smoke grenades, and flash bangs with chemical WMD.



2. The US army bombards Falluja with Phosphoric pumps


WTF?????? A Google search didn't turn up anything about Phosphoric pumps. It had a few hits about pumping phosphoric acid.



3. The US army have destruct houses, Mosques and stores and rubber value things

From reading the webpage listed in the first post, it's obvious the writer had only a basic understanding of english and most likely used a dictionary to translate words. There are a lot of places where you can understand what the author is saying, but they use the wrong words. "buried many of those civilians in collectivism graves" is one example. The author meant mass graves. I have no doubt when the army invaded Falluja there was a lot of destruction to the buildings the insurgents were hiding in. But I have no idea what "rubber value things" are.

I have no doubt there were civillian casualties in Falluja. It's horrible, but it's the price paid in war. I think most of the 5,000 civilian deaths mentioned in this statement were overestimated and that many of them were the terrorist insurgents. They all wore civillian clothing. Even if 5,000 civillians were killed, one look at urban battles from WWII will show you how far the US has come at protecting civillian lives. In WWII we fire-bombed the city of Dresden and killed over 130,000 people instead of fighting street to street. I can't say that I approve the killing of civillians, but as I said above I believe that number is grossly inflated. If I remember correctly, there were 30,000 insugents in Falluja before the attack. It's estimated that over half of them slipped out prior to the attack and somewhere around 10,000 stayed to make a last stand. This would lead to around 5000 insurgent deaths.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
theres a photo of Iraqi children in the back of a US truck. Their sitting indian style.

The photo states the following : "American terrorists use the civilians of Falluja as human shields on their vehicles against the resistance during house raid in Falluja."

to protect what??, their just loading children on a truck. Its a quick means of transportation. This site is what many would like to call propaganda.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
"However, it also disallowed for the resistance who were killed to be buried and let them to be eaten by dogs!"

Yesss... Of course... Oh look... a flying pig how strange.

Come on can any one believe a single word of any of this.

"The Resistance in Falluja assures that it still controls more than %50 of the city and it gain victory over occupation."..



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Amazing how old news and topics keep getting resurrected and brought forth. Hate and ignorance thrives well on this board. Bet.

ATS: IslamOnline: US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah

Whats further amazing is that it is only radical Islamic sites that are pushing this propaganda material on alleged uses of chemcials and banned weapons when applied to Fallujah.

Fallujah: From insurgent stronghold to 'safest city in Iraq'
US used Napalm in Fallujah

*shakes head*




seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Howdy folks...

Consider the source, these are the same folks that brought out the fake porn picks of rape, last year...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seams that they're still pumping out their fake stories...




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Howdy folks...

Consider the source, these are the same folks that brought out the fake porn picks of rape, last year...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seams that they're still pumping out their fake stories...



True the site information is actually one year old and obiouvsly who every posted it clearly does not even know what they are talking about.

H3PO4 or phosporic acid is used to make TFT LCD' and capacitors which have nothing to do with checmical weapons



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I think the obvious question is: What purpose would American forces have for using chemical weapons in Fallujah?

First, American policy clearly states that chemical and biological weapons are not to be used under any circimstances, ever. Therefore, they have no chemical weapons to use.

Second, to use chemical weapons in such a close-in battle environment would facilitate the need to use chemical protective gear by our forces. This would reduce our combat effectiveness and longevity. And how many photos exist of US Troops wearing their pro-masks? None...

Third, these news services that report such rediculous claims on such a regular basis are hardly credible at this point. To publish a couple of photos and a couple of paragraphs simply stating that these are proof of their claims proves how rediculous and stupid they are. They have no concept of reality.

If they were any good, they would at least try just a little bit harder.

Morons.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Well a few months ago i remember reading on a news site (a translated islammemo website) that US soldiers used illegal banned gasses in falluja, there was picuters of a doctor who made the claims, saying he saw many people with wounds which these gasses would leave) Of course all the anti-non USA people here (that means the americans who refuse to believe a single thing bad about the country) wouldnt believe it, but then on the mainstream news a a few days later a munition was fired into one of the US bases containing white powder (this one on many websites im sure you could find it still on google). On the post from islammemo, it contained a threat that the Resistance in iraq would rettaliate with similar weps to what the US used...

So if you ask me its highly possible, given that the US doesnt give a damm about anyone who doesnt persribe to there way of life (People whine islam tries to convert, yet the US is waging wars just so it can westernize the east, placing Burger kings in iraq is a obvious sign of this...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I think the obvious question is: What purpose would American forces have for using chemical weapons in Fallujah?

The obvious answer here is, the US could not take fallujah no matter how hard they tried, so they resulted to using banned chemicals,

First, American policy clearly states that chemical and biological weapons are not to be used under any circimstances, ever. Therefore, they have no chemical weapons to use.

Ok im guessing this is a joke? its commen knowledge america has and still devolops alongside with Isreal many nasty chemicals, including "safe" ones which are meant to cause tempory damage but probably do much worse in the long run

Second, to use chemical weapons in such a close-in battle environment would facilitate the need to use chemical protective gear by our forces. This would reduce our combat effectiveness and longevity. And how many photos exist of US Troops wearing their pro-masks? None...

Do you really think infantry would desperse these chemicals in the middle of a battle field? Have you any photos of ANYONE in a battle carrying around giant gas bottles spraying enemies with them? The chemicals would be sprayed out of a plane or helicopter, or dropped in a bomb which explodes over the desired area

Third, these news services that report such rediculous claims on such a regular basis are hardly credible at this point. To publish a couple of photos and a couple of paragraphs simply stating that these are proof of their claims proves how rediculous and stupid they are. They have no concept of reality.
If they were any good, they would at least try just a little bit harder.

Well you could say the same about the rediculous claims made almost daily about the "war on terrorism". I really dont believe i need to start posting sources for the many cockups made by the US forces/media do i?. and FYI like i said in my earlier post these allagations came in many months ago just after the US managed to take falluja.

In all probability the US used these because short of flattening the whole of falluja (they had to leave a bit so they can pose with there newscrews!) this was the only way they could succeed.

Morons.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I don't know if it would suprise me too much, I am way past having any illusions about the morality of the Iraq War or it's supporters, but this seems politically risky for the US. Almost any chemical weapon would leave traces that could be found by investigators later on, and I don't think thre was any military necessity that justified the political risk.

I have no doubt that a great many innocents died by US hands in Fallujah, but without any physical evidence, claiming the use of chem weapons smells to me like a simple propaganda ploy by the insurgents.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
it was most likely smoke canisters used by Marines wen crossin wide streets to get to the other side while hidin from enemy snipers and rpgs through the artificial fog. im not surprise they tend to inflate the number of casualties to get support from muj and would be martyrs otherwise they aint gonna get ani support if they keep killin innocent people, especially shiite muslims since the so call "mujahadeen" claims they are the defenders of Islam. they can't explain why they are targeting mosques or imams of Shiites. they try to defend the car bombings as killing apostates or unbelievers.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I don't know if it would suprise me too much, I am way past having any illusions about the morality of the Iraq War or it's supporters, but this seems politically risky for the US. Almost any chemical weapon would leave traces that could be found by investigators later on, and I don't think thre was any military necessity that justified the political risk.

I have no doubt that a great many innocents died by US hands in Fallujah, but without any physical evidence, claiming the use of chem weapons smells to me like a simple propaganda ploy by the insurgents.


The problem is tho the lack of media, or any inspecters but that of the US that are allowed into the country that is stopping us from seeing this, despite what many people are led to believe from the western media reporters are never allowed to see the battles, or are the many impartial spectators allowed to watch the US (apart from the few propoganda stories u see on the news)




top topics



 
0

log in

join