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.

 

US uses banned Chemical Agents in Iraq

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Valhall, your will to negate even the most obvious logic is impressive. "that these weapons should not be used in such a way that they will cause unnecessary suffering, (66) which means that in particular they should not be used against individuals without cover." So you say the Napalm was used against individuals hiding in an high tech self-contained bunker ?



[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Using incendiary weapons on structures,kills the occupants,especially in a concrete bunker,all of the oxygen in the space is consumed,the occupants will suffocate,dead is dead.
weapons bad,weapons bad,bad men need weapons,slaves with weapons do the dirty work for bad men.....



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Good point. Weapons killing by suffocation are also banned.



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:33 AM
link   
**Moku**

THEY ARE NOT BANNED. Your original post title and insinuations are FALSE! I will no longer discuss your petty twisted logic with you. THEY ARE NOT BANNED. We did NOT used BANNED weapons. You are incapable of admitting your obsession for disinformation. THE WEAPONS WERE NOT BANNED. That's the long and the short of it. THE WEAPONS WERE NOT BANNED.



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:38 AM
link   
From what we just saw above, it is banned to use Napalm against people who are not safe inside a self-contained high tech bunker, or what would you qualify as appropriate covering against Napalm ? a tent ? a trench ? a house ? a jeep ? Perhaps an asbestos battle suit with oxygen tanks .. yes..

Now please Valhall get real, and stop these unproductive attacks on my person.




[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It is our government that did something,we just foot the bill,it really has nothing to do with anything but money,unless you are the one who gets killed or maimed,or you are related to someone or know someone who did.As hard as it may be for some people to fathom,it is just business



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Valhall: Your quote.

"The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets."

What exactly does that mean to you? They haven't "agreed" to banning it against civilian targets. Why would the US say , "Well, we don't want to agree to anything that doesn't allow us to firebomb civilian targets with banned incendiary weapons. " I know it's a stretch, but it's most likely because they do that already.

Muka was nice enough to repost the actual Geneva Convention Protocol, so there's your answer. They're "weapons banned by the Geneva Convention".

The only countries in the world who didn't sign Protocol III vs napalm are Israel, Korea, Monaco, Morocco, and the United States. 85 other countries signed.


Jakomo



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   
here's a question. whats gonna happen? NOTHING.

since the UN did nothing for 12 years to saddam i seriously doubt they'll do anything to the US other than "bad boy!".


the UN doesnt enforce jacksh!t so they can ban this that and the other thing but as long as the UN does absolutely nothing to REALLY enforce their bannings and policies the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger.


i still find it amazing people STILL thinking along the lines that killing people of one kind is ok but not another. as if killing someone one way is more humane than another. the banning of certain weapons makes no sense. they ban them on the premise that they cause "unecessary harm" when any weapon can do that. one can construe war as unecessary harm but i dont see anyone banning war. so it makes little sense to me for these bannings. its like saying "you can have war but you cant be all out blood thristy savages, you have to be nice to them to some extent" which makes little sense to me. no country has every followed the rules to the letter and i doubt any country ever will. the rules set up are self defeating if you follow them and rest assured the enemy more than likely will not follow them himself. these "war crimes" trials and such are a farce. they punish those who have never fired a shot, only ordered the killing of others and yet they dont punish those who go out and actually do the killing. this punishment by proxy is sad and the logic people use makes no sense to me, i dont see any consistency. all i see are people trying to insert logic and rules in a chaotic illogical thing. they use open ended logic and moral relativism for their own ends and they think these "rules" and bannings will make war somehow more humane and people will suffer less.

in war there are no half measures. if you REALLY want to end suffering in a war, ban war, not a particular weapon. banning a weapon is nothing more than a token effort and really does nothing in the long run, people will just find other weapons to use, better weapons, more effective weapons. all you're doing is encouraging people to create bigger, deadlier "conventional" (nothing conventuional about war i assure you) weapons.

these bannings and "rules" are nothing more than half measures, they dont ease the suffering and they arent enforced very well either.


basically this "banning" some people are refering to is pretty much an agreement among those who signed it. by signing it they agreed not to make napalm. woopty doo for them, the US didnt sign it and therefore didnt agree not to make, have or use napalm. but you can keep calling it a banning all you want.



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Voice_of_Doom, America has had its own Civil War to maintain freedoms that was far worse than the American backed wars in Nicaragua, so your wife can shove it for all I care. She's in no more position to educate us on American Democracy than is a Ubangi.



posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Bugger

I wanted to let my friend FreeMason know I do not directly include him in the category of 'arch Conservatives', but he has already gone the path of his previous 12 sojourns to ATS...

And no, I am personally not Canadian. But I so tenaciously cling to my 'citizen of the world' / 'international entity of mystery' persona here at ATS, constantly changing my spelling with the odd insertion of u's here and there, and random interchanges of s's and z's, that I would not even venture to note here the nationality of my passport/s.

See 'Trust and Distrust' Topic.

BTW, I still think a more important question than what the term 'banned' should encompass is 'why is the US not signing treaties?' The reasons that I have read elsewhere at ATS are pure B.S. The USA is increasingly a dangerous rogue state in the guise of a superpower and global policeman.

Back to the issue of banning, look at FreeMason. He is banned, even after signing a bilateral treaty specifically covering his participation.

I am afraid I remain 100% behind Moku on the issues here, and the people that say he has twisted and contorted are not true to themselves, except that they are twisting and contorting the truth themselves.

Blind patriotism is a fatal disease.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join