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.

 

NEWS: Zarqawi Accuses US Forces of Using Poison Gases In Tal Afar

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has accused the American military of using poisonous gases on Tal Afar during the current offensive in the town near the Syrain border. The accusation was made in a audiotape received and posted on an islamic website on the anniversary of 9/11. The US government believes the tape is authentic but denied the poison gases claims. Over 200 suspected rebels and insurgents have been killed by US led forces since the Tal Afar offensive began. The mayor of Tal Afar has resigned in protest of the US led offensive.
 



www.abc.net.au
"In Tal Afar, the Crusaders went in waves using the most destructive of weapons and the most poisonous of gasses," the tape states.

"Anything the man (Zarqawi) says is probably not true. But for certain, the claim of poison gas is not true," a Pentagon official said.

A technical analysis of the message has not yet been completed.

"That is, based on the fact that there's no record of false Zarqawi tapes ever surfacing," the official said.

The tape surfaced as US and Iraqi troops attack rebels and foreign fighters in Tal Afar.

Troops say rebels have been using the town as a conduit for equipment and men crossing illegally from Syria to fight the Shiite and Kurdish-led Iraqi Government and occupying US forces.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is an interesting snippet of news. Is the case true of "where there is smoke there is fire". Is this being made up by the rebels or is it actually true? Were poison gases used by the miltary? I doubt we will ever know for certain.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Poison gas.

Would US troops go in to an area where the KNEW toxic gases were in the air without their protective suits?

No. They're looking forward to a beer and watching football in this life, preferably starting with this year's playoffs. No 72 hypothetical virgins crud.

Are they trained in the USE of chemical weapons? You don't just use them without knowing what you're doing. There'd be a mutiny if some wackjob suggested they use gas without them knowing exactly how to do it. And how would you hide that fact that they got training in that from everybody? You wouldn't.

Are all the US troops dressed in full body protective suits? Bet they aren't. I haven't seen one since the early days when they were looking for Saddam's virtual WMDs.

At most there may be tear gases. It's unclear what the legality on tear gases in a domestic insurrection, which is what this is.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by Mayet
Over 200 suspected rebels and insurgents have been killed by US forces since the Tal Afar offensive began.

Correction:
'Over 200 suspected rebels and insurgents have been killed by US and Iraqi forces since the Tal Afar offensive began.'

Furthermore, as mentioned in a like WOT topic, interesting that Zarqawi claims such when a like threat by an Al-Qaeda group in Iraq was cited and made against the US and Iraqi forces in and around Tal Afar.

As with Fallujah, probably nothing more than reports of white phosphorus use, if that at all. Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda is more likely being whooped in Tal Afar, hence his propaganda of US uses of poison gas.





seekerof

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
This one almost doesn't warrant a reply. Would the US use WMD, especially something as sensitive as poison gas in Iraq of all places? Please, the US military has way to many options to even consider this. Desperate rebels looking for a media boost that just doesn't exist any longer.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Highly doubtful the US would use gas against the insurgents. More then likely what they think is poisonous gas is nothing more then the methane gas expelled by the insurgents as they run away.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I think it's safe to consider Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a less than reliable source



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Did they?
Didn't they?
Would we want to believe if it could be proved?

Only the people there know for sure.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I love how Zarqawi's word is gold when he's threatening and allowing US troops to warrent raids on new towns so another part of Iraq can be 'freed', yet when he says something like this, Oh no, he's full of it, don't believe a word he says unless we say it's true!

"Anything the man (Zarqawi) says is probably not true. But for certain, the claim of poison gas is not true," a Pentagon official said.

"That is, based on the fact that there's no record of false Zarqawi tapes ever surfacing," the official said. "


Do we need to remind the Pentagon that no one besides the Pentagon believes Al-Zarqawi even exists, no one can confirm his existance with PROOF, not even the Pentagon. All those 'PROOF' buffs out there, here's one you should demand proof of.

What a mixed bunch of statements they've made here. They don't want us to think Al-Zarqawi is fake, they don't want us to believe that nothing he's ever 'said' is fake BUT, of course this is fake!

The Pentagon don't seem to know which way to spin this.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Anyone who would give an ounce of credibility to a statement made by someone whose operations purposely target innocent civilians is out of their mind. This man, and I use that term loosely, sends people (including the mentally retarded) on missions of certain death just to blow up women and children.

No matter what TheShroudOfMemphis wants you all to believe, this evil terrorist does exist. Anyone who knows anything about terrorism knew of his existence before US troops ever set foot in Iraq. Maybe stories about him, especially those in the media and those coming from the Pentagon, are blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, this man does exist and he does have the blood of innocent Iraqi's as well as US troops and UN employees on his hands.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
No matter what TheShroudOfMemphis wants you all to believe, this evil terrorist does exist. Anyone who knows anything about terrorism knew of his existence before US troops ever set foot in Iraq. Maybe stories about him, especially those in the media and those coming from the Pentagon, are blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, this man does exist and he does have the blood of innocent Iraqi's as well as US troops and UN employees on his hands.



Oh that's rich.
Paid for by the Pentagon?

I've been following Terrorism before 9/11, i know more than most people on this board about how these things are run and i can tell you from the Pentagons own mouth that, yes Al-Zarqawi was a real person at one point but since the Iraq war - THERE IS NO PROOF HE EXISTS.
Dead men can't talk back, they are used as figure heads. The CIA fund these organisations, they have been for the last 20 years.

As for what 'i' want you to believe, here's a few others that agree with me:



"A member of the former Iraqi Governing Council, Fadhl al-Rube'i, was interviewed on the Lebanese channel New TV, on May 16, 2004. He called Mr. al-Zarqawi mythical and a creation of the Pentagon's "disinformation" center."




"The spokesman for radical Iraqi Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, Sheikh Abd al-Hadi al-Daraji, likewise stated in an April 4 interview with the Israeli-Arab weekly Kul Al-Arab that Mr. al-Zarqawi was an "ambiguous, imaginary, and made-up figure," created to justify American operations in Iraq."




An international relations expert at Egypt's Al-Ahram Institute, Said al-Lawindi, appeared on Egyptian channel 1, on November 16, 2004, and alleged that Mr. al-Zarqawi was a fabrication: "Where is this al-Zarqawi? I have read even in the French press, in Le Monde, that anyone can show a photograph of someone who died decades ago and claim that it is al-Zarqawi. This is an attempt by the U.S. to emphasize ... you can't go on forever talking about bin Laden, who has also become a myth."




Saudi daily Arab News, on October 26, 2004, and stated, "Zarqawi has been built up into an almost legendary figure ... Zarqawi is suspected of direct involvement in the kidnap and beheading of several foreigners in Iraq ... But many question his very existence." The article also discussed the battle in Falluja: "The people of Falluja, however, insist that they have never seen the man or heard about him except through the media. So, where is Zarqawi or, indeed, does he exist?"


Plus many more at:
www.frontpagemag.com...

NO ONE can confirm Al-Zarqawi's existance since 2001, not the CIA, not the Pentagon, not the Whitehouse. NO ONE.

So besides Rasputins glorification of USA's No. 1 enemy and catalyst for Iraq, here's some real research with plenty of links to ponder:

Zarqawi Does Not Exist

Read it and DENY IGNORANCE because until the Pentagon can prove this man exists, why believe them?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
In a sence the US uses biological warfare offten as there tanks use armor piercing rockets that have to have chemicals on them (A protecive sheet around them in order to penatrait) in order to penatrait the enemys tanks. If weave been using tanks than it may be true. Every person in my family who as gone to a high rank military base has gotten a rare cancer, on both sides of the family, as well as friends family, so Im sure there is some inconsideration by the main officials there, what are they storing?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I've always wondered why they don't just use strong knockout gas to subdue the enemy and
then capture them while they're sleeping.

At least this way no innocent bystanders or children would be harmed and
those captured could be used for intelligence gathering.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Anyone who would give an ounce of credibility to a statement made by someone whose operations purposely target innocent civilians is out of their mind. This man, and I use that term loosely, sends people (including the mentally retarded) on missions of certain death just to blow up women and children.

No matter what TheShroudOfMemphis wants you all to believe, this evil terrorist does exist. Anyone who knows anything about terrorism knew of his existence before US troops ever set foot in Iraq. Maybe stories about him, especially those in the media and those coming from the Pentagon, are blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, this man does exist and he does have the blood of innocent Iraqi's as well as US troops and UN employees on his hands.


I second what Raspitin has said.

It is good to know some people still have some good common sense.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   


Anyone who would give an ounce of credibility to a statement made by someone whose operations purposely target innocent civilians is out of their mind.


Well that's why I don't pay much heed to anything Bush says either



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

I've always wondered why they don't just use strong knockout gas to subdue the enemy and
then capture them while they're sleeping.

At least this way no innocent bystanders or children would be harmed and
those captured could be used for intelligence gathering.


Remember a few years ago the Russians tried that with that captured theater? They lost more people to the gas than to the terrorists. Contrary to what you see on TV there is no gas or injectable drug that will knock someone out instantly. In order to use gas you need to get each person to breathe a certain amount for a certain time. Leave them exposed too long and the gas can become fatal, too short an exposure and they will wake up quickly.

I think that I can solve the mystery about the poision gas claims though. The Marines are suffering from budgetary problems and they have resorted to feeding their troops in the field the old C-rations. Problem is that the supply dweebs took all of the good ones leaving just the Ham and Lima Bean ones. Having nothing else to eat the Marines ate them with the predictable results.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Would the US military use a chemical weapon, if they knew that there was going to be no pictures or publicity on it because the area was far too hot for reporters?


Oh, right, I forgot, your average Army is filled with very caring, compassionate men and women who value the "rules of combat" on the battlefield.

Miltaries don't firebomb villages, they don't rape women, and they NEVER lose their cool and their focus and do something inhuman.

....



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

as posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
NO ONE can confirm Al-Zarqawi's existance since 2001, not the CIA, not the Pentagon, not the Whitehouse. NO ONE.

"No One," eh?
Would this be along the same lines as you trying to prove that crop circles of any type are all man-made?
Things are simply black and white, no grey areas at all, in your world...?
Apparently, Al-Jazerra and other Middle Eastern media sources are not having the same problems in providing for Zarqawi's existence. For that matter, most Western media outlets are not having such problems in providing or proving Zarqawi's existence. Thoughts?

But then again, I'm quite sure that I would have problems confirming the existence of TheShroudOfMemphis. Get the point being made here?

Your issue of existence is ludicrous, about as ludicrous as the claims made by Zarqawi or any of his group that asserts that the US and Iraqi forces in and around Tal Afar are using poison gases. Go figure.






seekerof

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Would the US military use a chemical weapon, if they knew that there was going to be no pictures or publicity on it because the area was far too hot for reporters?


Oh, right, I forgot, your average Army is filled with very caring, compassionate men and women who value the "rules of combat" on the battlefield.

Miltaries don't firebomb villages, they don't rape women, and they NEVER lose their cool and their focus and do something inhuman.

....


Define chemical weapons. Tear gas and smoke grenades both can be considered chemical weapons, but I don't think that this is what you mean.
Biggest problem with the use of your type of chemical weapons is the fact that they are as dangerous to your own side as they are to the enemy. No I don't think that the US military is using your type of chemical weapons in Iraq. I don't think that they are necessary. If the US military are the monsters that you are portraying them to be why take the flak for using chemical weapons when they could just as easily carpet bomb the area back to the Stone Age.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Isn't this a bit like Charles Manson complaining about someone scolding a puppy too hard?

I mean, this joker beheads civilians, shoots little old ladies in the forehead, and then has the nerve to whine about some tear gas? (as that's likely what was used....)

Oh boo, the frickin' hoo....


There is hardly the need to use chemical weapons in Iraq. It'd be absolutely foolish, and dangerous, to do so. This is some serious BS rhetoric. However, many in the Arab world will believe it, sadly enough, so the Administration would be wise to seriously and publicly address the accusation and demand proof (which won't be forthcoming).



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You know, I don't know if they did or if they didn't but WOULD they? Would the U.S. Army use debilitating chemical gases to take over an insurgent controlled town?

Um, yeah. Bush has already authorized the use of tear gas in Iraq, which is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which states that “each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.” Besides, using tear gas in an urban area is dangerous. If you are in a confined room and you are subject to a large dose of tear gas over a prolonged period, death is ensured.

They've used cluster bombs in urban areas, which produce an area effect, meaning that their submunitions spread over a footprint around the size of a football field. When used in populated areas, cluster strikes virtually guarantee civilian casualties.

I found a good paper on it online:


Type of injuries: It is the “fragmentation effect” which is responsible for deaths and injuries, when fragments of the exploding munition, or stones and little objects blown by the blast wave (secondary fragmentation) hit and penetrate the human body. Fragmentation is not a side effect but an intended design objective of cluster weapons, and manufacturers generally seek to perfect the fragmentation of the outer casings of submunitions in order to increase the lethality of their weapons. Fragmentation wounds are small but the internal damage is devastating. Fragments travel through the skin and muscles and hit a bone, sending pressure waves into the body and causing internal bleeding. Fragments of broken bones can also lodge themselves in tissues, arteries and organs and intensify the bleeding. In addition to rapid loss of blood, internal bleeding can compress important organs such as the lungs and stop the circulation of blood or oxygen through the body. About 30% of victims die even with good life support equipment (Husum et al. 2000). Fragments lodged in the chest or in the skull are almost always fatal.

Status in international humanitarian law: There is no specific international treaty banning the use of cluster weapons. Therefore, cluster weapons are not illegal per se. However, because of their indiscriminate effect, the use of cluster munitions, especially in built-up areas, violates certain principles enshrined in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, namely article 48 on the parties’ duty to protect civilian populations, and article 51.4 on the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks:

Art. 48: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives
Art.51.4: 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


www.medact.org/content/wmd_and_conflict/ Companion%20paper%20no%202.doc

So who knows if they actually are using POISON gases in Iraq, but at this point neither I or anybody else educated enough to know what ANY military is capable of doubts it is entirely possible.


jako




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join