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.

 

Falluja WMD horror scoop aired tomorrow

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Invading other countries, killing the inhabitants, and sacrificing your nation's sons and daughters without justification is wrong, whether you adhere to international rules of engagement or not.

Invading other countries,Maybe- killing its inhabitants,Maybe-- but sacrificing our nations "sons and daughters" is OUR business not YOURS and we do with them as we please!! If WE dont want it WE wont have it, it is not the rest of the world that judges what WE do with OUR "sons and daughters" !!




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
one of the first things they mention is how during the vietnamn war, only 3% of the media actually aired images of the effects of napalm on vietnamese civilians.

Why would they do that, if it were not their intention to bring back a comparision with Vietnam ? To say Iraq is like Vietnam and the troops use napalm the same way they did in Vietnam, kill people recklessly and other such slander.
It is clear to the reasonable individual that this is merely a campaign by the Italians, who after their withdrawl from Iraq want to resort to leftist populism.
Another thing is how can they say it was only 3%? have they monitored all forms of media(i.e every magazine, paper, TV broadcast?) during all those years? I doubt it ?
They start off with such a biased tone and then lead the viewer to some quasi-documentary BS that followed by what supposedly is a "revelation" by the US marines!
Yeah Right !
I ask, which rational human being will say "Yes, I am guilty. TAke me back and try me for war crimes? " And that too a US Marine? who arent so much as to piss if they are not permitted to do so ??



It also mentioned that the only media allowed in Iraq basically was the IMbedded media, or as i like to call them "imbed with" media, they report things as the video said "only from a key whole and through one point of view", the point of view of the US administration.

REally??

So what they are trying to say is that only "they" are the credible source of truth and the rest of the news agencies in IRAQ are in their/your words " only from a key whole[??] and through one point of view" .
Isnt that just rediculous ?? Its almost as if they are pleading with people to watch their propaganda because they say its true !!



7 months ago , This article:

Global Eye
Filter Tips
By Chris Floyd
Published: March 18, 2005

U.S. President George W. Bush often complains about the "media filter" that distorts the true picture of his administration's accomplishments in Iraq. And he's right. For regardless of where you stand on Bush's policies in the region, it's undeniable that the political and commercial biases of the American press have consistently misrepresented the reality of the situation.
blah..blah follows......


First who the hell is Chris Floyd ?? And why should I believe anything that he says??
Second he says that "political and commercial biases of the American press have consistently misrepresented the reality of the situation." Does he mean that he is not subject to this bias even though he is AMerican ??
Further, Does he mean that other press such as the European, arab press is some messaiah of the truth??
Also you go on to say latter in the article that some 200,000 people affected with "toxin laced" DU shells- what does "toxin-laced" mean exactly? do the Coalition forces dip their bullets in some cobra venom or something?
- and mustard gas victims are in Fallujah's camps? Where is the proof of this? IF so many people are affected by chemical weapons surely it would have been easier to just get hold of a few 100 of these people then risk their lives in some Coalition raid on terrorists would it ?
Another thing, Which weapon exactly did the Coalition forces use to deliver the so called "nerve-agents like mustard gas" ?? Why doesnt he tell us ??
Because their isnt one!! (*I hope their is a glowing bulb floating above your head right now, revelation and all that!
)
The US banned this in 1984 when Regan was president and any use of it would be illega and later Bush Sr signed it with the russians in 1990(see wikipedia)
This leaves the question if these people used chemical weapons will they be tried in America, most likely yes, if it is true. So why would they jepordise themselves and say it on camera ?? Makes no sense does it, unless of course you'r a gullible psuedo-righteous activist.





So let me ask you, why did your "independent" western media, ignore the words of their own puppet health minister? It's not a part of the Pro-american healths ministers agenda to say the americans did bad things in fallujah. So his words have credibility.

First you call him puppet, then you call him credible, so he is a credible puppet minister ??

Alslo, it is not merely the American media but a large section of the international media that forgot to mention this ministers rant ? why blame America for it unless that is your main aim?
Even say, the swedes, their media is not controlled by washington, why didnt they report it ? or any other dozen media groups present at that time ?


Its hard to belive people still exist in the world that think like this, especially since i was only 12 years old when i realised how controlled the media was.

Its hard to believe that some people actually make a living out of slandering a nation to which they have never resided in or have any credible practical knowledge. Its hard to believe that people are indoctrinated at so young an age.
Its hard to believe that people cant see through their own issues about a country and look at its compulsions and standpoint before they judge it.


It works like this, All major media's get their funding from either of two places.
A) the government.
or
B) businessmen / corporations.

Really? So they media is free, I wonder why I cant get the USnews for free as it is the Govt and the businesses that pay the subscription! Why is that?
The above maybe the case in your "resistence world" but where I live we have to PAY money to access the media. I have to PAY for the paper, pay to watch TV and PAY to get any premium content on any news Site !
This is they way the media earns its money, I doubt the Govt will pay my subscription!
Unfortuantely this isnt propaganda, now THAT is FREE>




But even then, even then, the truth wants to be known, and it always shines through in the end.

OOW!
Lead on Skully !!



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
I think you have this the other way round, you attacked THEIR country, and you are currently in THEIR country. Are the CITY DEFENDERS to blame, or are the CITY ATTACKERS TO BLAME?

WRONG AGAIN !
We attacked Saddam and the Bathists. We are forced to stay in that cursed slum because the UN has passed a resolution to make sure Iraq is secured and democracy installed properly. It is sponsored by the UN .
The people who defend the City are the city police and the Iraqi Army which Iraq has, a better and democratic one. The vermin in Fallujah are fundemantalists who like the scum before them called themselves freedom fighters and hide in all the holes to be caught like mice and killed. If they were in any way freedom fighters, they would openly declare war, stand and fight till the last man was alive. That is true bravery, but as is typical of these cowardly Islamic militants they either blow themselves up or hide in holes and shoot at the soldiers passing by.
City Defenders! right. I wouldnt want my city to be defended like this! If they really had the courage, they could hae fought like the russians in stalingrad fight till the end but they arent doing that. As soon as the Coalition attacked they fled leaving their city, cowards not city defenders.
The coalition told them that they can save everybody's lives if they leave the city but they fundamentalist didnt want to, they are the one who killed the people because they were too cowardly to go and face the Americans and too stupid not to leave when it was possible.
So everybody who died in Fallujah is because the Islamists terrorists let them die not because the Coalition attacked Falluajh and shot everybody to hell. They said they would and they did what they said. The Coalition were atleast honest




Message from the people of Fallujah (one year on...)
By: Bristol Stop the War on: 31.10.2005 [23:48 ] (8748 reads)
Article image
Message from the people of Fallujah
Yahoo News Groups
Bristol Stop The War News - U.K

Bristol Stop the WAR news!!

LOL I mean you expect people here to feel shocked or saddened by this cowardly drivel ? Their own so called "Defenders" left them to die at the hands of the coaltion so what can we expect from these people but more cowardly attempts to send letters to some inane anti-war group ?
Why cant they stand for the elections or meet the IRaqi governing council and settle their problems democratically? A opportunity that SAddam didnt give them, maybe they need to be treated like how saddam did, shoot all dissidents and bury them in open unmarked graves, call them theives later!
Democracy is an alien concept to these people sadly .


But you know despite all the horrible things you did to the fallujans, there spirit has not been broken, and they are STILL fighting!!!

Oh! you mean hiding in holes and shooting passing troops, blowing themselves up in markets and doing suicide missions? that is their "still fighting" ? Pathetic people!!



Fallujah is the symbol for the Undying human spirit.

Some symbol it is!
Too scared to fight openly, too stupid to stand for elections and excercise peacefull democratic solutions.
Yeah real symbol! A symbol of all that plauges the arab world!!


[Edit] **Sorry if this comes off as too harsh or abusive but It is not intended to be so. Some of it is improper I agree but has to be said.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, but oh well.

First, WP is banned against civilians. ONLY if it's TARGETED DIRECTLY at the civilians. If there are civilians in a combat zone, and it is used on the COMBATANTS it is NOT a banned weapon. In Fallujah it was used on COMBATANTS, not civilians. Civilians may have been caught in the combat area, but it was not targeted against them.

Second, we definately were NOT using our largest bombs against Fallujah. If we were, they would have dropped MOAB, which would have levelled the entire city in about a second.
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
IAF101 go bomb some civilians for fecks sake its fun no?
And im dying to know how many of your own children you sacrificed for the democracy, im thinking........none?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Invading other countries,Maybe- killing its inhabitants,Maybe-- but sacrificing our nations "sons and daughters" is OUR business not YOURS and we do with them as we please!! If WE dont want it WE wont have it, it is not the rest of the world that judges what WE do with OUR "sons and daughters" !!


Fine, go ahead and sacrifice as many of them as you see fit. Good luck to you playing God, but my use of "your" was intended in the non-specific meaning, as in "one" i.e. "If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned". I also made this quite clear by referring to "Coalition forces", and not "American forces". Understand?

You seem to forget that there was and still is a number of nations involved in this disaster - militarily, politically, and logistically. It was not only the United States and her sons and daughters who were dragged into this war by means of global deception perpetrated by a select few. In light of this, I find your isolationist, supremacist attitude infinitely noxious.

As for your next two posts, after seeing them interspersed with about 50 eye-rolling smilies, I decided to skip them completely. The content however, can be easily predicted. No great loss, I'm quite sure.

*slaps with glove* Good day to you, Sir!!



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Fine, go ahead

If your FINE with it then why bring it up ? Why denigrate the willing with your contempt ? You dont see it as worthy cause, that is your liberty, they do and that is their choice.



but my use of "your" was intended in the non-specific meaning, as in "one"

So was my use of "your" . I never said "YOU". You seem to forget that you are not the only anti-war proponent in this thread. This I've made clear with my reference to the world judging the US.


You seem to forget that there was and still is a number of nations involved

YOur comment at that point of discussion was with an American and your reference was to the USA, which concerns me. Do not try to equivocate!



I find your isolationist, supremacist attitude infinitely noxious.

Get used to it !!



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Meh~ not worth it.


.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Here something New for all you to chew on.


Independant

'I treated people who had their skin melted'

Abu Sabah knew he had witnessed something unusual. Sitting in November last year in a refugee camp in the grounds of Baghdad University, set up for the families who fled or were driven from Fallujah, this resident of the city's Jolan district told me how he had witnessed some of the battle's heaviest fighting.



Hi-Res Photo of Fallujah

"They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud," he said. He had seen "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns".

As an unembedded journalist, I spent hours talking to residents forced out of the city. A doctor from Fallujah working in Saqlawiyah, on the outskirts of Fallujah, described treating victims during the siege "who had their skin melted".

He asked to be referred to simply as Dr Ahmed because of fears of reprisals for speaking out. "The people and bodies I have seen were definitely hit by fire weapons and had no other shrapnel wounds," he said.

Burhan Fasa'a, a freelance cameraman working for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I saw cluster bombs everywhere and so many bodies that were burnt, dead with no bullets in them," he said. "So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Jolan district."

The author is an unembedded journalist reporting from Fallujah


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Video Game Celebrates Fallujah Slaughter

Players join U.S. Marines and Army soldiers in their attack on the Jolan district in Fallujah. For the making of “Fallujah: Operation al-Fajr,” Kuma Reality Games used detailed satellite imagery of Jolan.

Publicity material for yesterday's new game says players "dodge sniper fire and protect civilians," while fighting to secure the Jolan district.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Wait a Minute...

"Protect Civilans"?

Yea Sure...




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
And now they own up to it....kinda

Pentagon Used White Phosphorus

Hmm our gubmint going back on their story.....nah cant be



The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The department later said its statement had been incorrect.

"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Hi-Res Photo of Fallujah


And did no one bother to notice that the Fallujahns have a GODDAMN STEALTH BOMBER!!?



QUICK! BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF THEM!! ...AGAIN!!



No, no, they don't really have a stealth bomber...calm down, calm down.

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
ok, white phosphorous to my knowledge is not a banned weapon, nor is it truly a WMD, so they title to this thread is flawd. However im intersted in hearing about the alleged 'mustard gas' and 'nerve agent' that SS spouts off about.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
not to mention using WP on our own troops to hide themselves as they run across streets. i guess in other peoples view the WP is a WMD.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
We'll need a head count on how many will be lunching today on the cold salted crow several members are preparing for a number of you.

U.S. Military admist using White Phosphorus in Fallujah Battle

Of course, now that the military has admitted the use of WP during the battle of Fallujah, I'm supposing the argument has to turn back to semantics about calling WP a WMD. I think I stated my opinion on that issue several pages of denial and ridicule back when I said if the author feels it is, he has every right to call it so. After all, if a weapon is indiscriminate and causes numerous casualties across a large area - and uses chemicals to do that! - who am I to argue with somebody else's opinion it's a WMD.

And, yes, WP is against the Geneva convention - as quoted before. Just because the U.S. won't be a signatory on that document doesn't get them out of being in violation of it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
White phosphorus is both a smoke producer and a particularly nasty incendiary agent, known as WP. Its white smoke has the highest total obscuring power (TOP) of any smoke. It was widely used in World War I in grenades and trench mortar rounds to screen troop movements. Most military smokes are now of other types, often colored with dyes. The 4.2-in. "Chemical" mortar of World War II was developed to throw white phosphorus shells, as well as whatever other chemical or biological agents might be required, but was later also found valuable as a general heavy mortar. This was a simple, light, portable weapon of great power, equivalent to a 105 mm howitzer, but of lesser range. It consisted of a tube about 5 ft long, a steel baseplate, and a bipod support with screws for elevation and traverse. The cylindrical round was simply dropped down the tube, and it sailed away on a high trajectory. The phosphorus sticks to whatever it hits, burns, and if what it has hit is combustible, sets it on fire. White phosphorus burns quickly and cooly and so is not a very effective incendiary agent. It is generally mixed with rubber or polystyrene to slow down the burning. Water will put out white phosphorus temporarily, but as soon as the phosphorus has access to air, it will start burning again. White phosphorus wounds are very unpleasant, since the phosphorus must be thoroughly washed out with a nonpolar solvent that is also noninflammable, for obvious reasons, before the burn can be treated. Carbon tetrachloride would be suitable, but it is dangerous because of the cancer hazard.
www.du.edu...

WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.
confederateyankee.mu.nu...

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.

. . . Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them. . . . Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself "why are they dropping smoke here?" the answer "because they are coming right through here." So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.
www.needlenose.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Here is someting new from Fallujah:


Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE – “Novel Explosive”- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

How to Destroy one-strey type Building from 100m with One Rocket.

Answer is:

Thermobaric Weapons


Here is some more Stuff about Fallujah:

Journalists tell of US Falluja killings

Did the US military use chemical weapons in Iraq?

Napalm Raid on Falluja?

Firebombing Fallujah

Bush Officials Lied to Britain About US Use of Napalm in Iraq

Iraq: Napalm, Chemical Weapons Used at Fallujah – Iraqi Official

U.S. Used Chemical Weapons In Iraq - Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us
Original Source: La Republica

Independant - US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

Dr. Geert Van Moorter Diary from Iraq

[edit on 16/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The use of WP as a WEAPON is wrong! I can't believe some people are still trying to justify its use. Sick. It is banned by the Geneva Conv. for a reason...because its a horrible, painful, terrifying death. It MELTS PEOPLE for crying out loud...and that's ok with you?! All this 'spin' isn't going to save you from the fact that it is not ok to use as a weapon. The "we didn't use it on civilians" crap is just that...crap...and I'm tired of hearing it. It doesn't excuse it. We are supposed to be leaders in the world, and we are only proving that we don't deserve that role by resorting to barbaric practices. Tourturing prisoners, DU, WP, rendition..it goes on and on and on. Where does it stop? When do we as humans decide we aren't going to do these things? Is there no line we won't cross? This administration is supposed to speak for the people....they don't speak for me! Do they speak for you?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by maidenwolf
The use of WP as a WEAPON is wrong! It is banned by the Geneva Conv. for a reason...


It may be illegal for some countries to use, but perfectly fine for the US to use in engagements.

globalsecurity.org


White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.


its not even illegal so i dont understand why people are so over dis...as long as its targeting enemy forces we are not violating the law. and there is no treaty banning it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by maidenwolf
The use of WP as a WEAPON is wrong! It is banned by the Geneva Conv. for a reason...


It may be illegal for some countries to use, but perfectly fine for the US to use in engagements.

globalsecurity.org


White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory



Well, what the heck does that prove?! I said...it's BANNED by Geneva Cov. FOR A REASON. You are right, we didn't sign...SO WHAT?! The rest of the world decided not to use it, but because we didn't sign it makes it ok? That is a very warped kind of logic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join