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: 11
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by maidenwolf
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.


is it ban? look at my previous post dats on top of yers right now. Geneva prohibits the use of such weapons on civilians even if not identified as WMD.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by deltaboy]




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Okay, WP munitions were used for incendiary purposes. But is it wrong to do so?
Let us have a look at the govening protocols;
According to the Geneva Protocol:


Protocol Obligations: The Geneva Protocol prohibits the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare.
Verification and Compliance: The Protocol recognizes the significance of bringing together controls on chemical and biological weapons. While it prohibits the use of such weapons, it does not prohibit their production, development, and stockpiling hence the need for further treaties the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1991 Chemical Weapons Convention. There is no verification mechanism contained within the Protocol and compliance is voluntary. The Geneva Protocol, implicitly, does not cover internal or civil conflicts.
Reservations: Upon ratification or accession to the Protocol, some States declared that it would cease to be binding on them if their enemies, or the allies of their enemies, failed to respect the prohibitions of the
Protocol.
Countries that continue to hold reservations to the Protocol are:
China, Fiji, India, Iraq[former state], Israel, United States.....

So from this we can gather that the Protocol doesnt cover internal conflicts, which the battle of Fallujah could possible constitute as Iraq was officially under US control before the battle of Fallujah. It is also clear that the US has declared that the Protocol would not be binding if their "enemies" were not to abide by the same rules. So technically, the Islamic Fundamentalists in Iraq could be considered an "enemy" that clearly doesnt abide by the Geneva Protocol and thus the Protocol would not need to be applied to them.
Also the protocol extends to cover the BWC and the CWC as requirements that need to be met by the ratifing states.

According to the Chemical Weapons Convention: www.nti.org...


The Convention defines a chemical weapon as the following, together or separately:
a)Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; specifically designed to cause death or other harm.

The CWC states that to be called a chemical weapon, thus a WMD, it should not be prohibited under the convention- which it isnt. As for the types and quantities, this is debatable. The purpose was clearly to flush out insurgents and to eliminate them with HE munitions, these insurgents were spread through out Fallujah-thus the quantity used must have been liberal but the exact amount cannot be determined correctly. The type of chemical used is WP which is an allotrope of Phosphorus and not present in Schedules 1 - 3 of the CWC thus NOT making it a chemical weapon.
Schedule 1Schedule 2 & 3

According to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons: www.armscontrol.org...


The operative provisions of the CCW are contained in several protocols annexed to the convention.[2] Currently, there are four protocols in force (see below) and a fifth that has been negotiated and adopted, but has not yet entered into force.
Protocol III: Incendiary Weapons

Protocol III regulates the use of weapons designed to set fire to or burn their target. The protocol proscribes targeting civilians with incendiary weapons and restricts the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in close proximity to concentrations of noncombatants. It also prohibits parties from targeting forests or other plant cover unless the vegetation is being used to conceal military forces. The protocol only covers weapons created intentionally to set fire or burn, such as flamethrowers. Weapons that ignite fires or burn as a side effect are not subject to the protocol.

This quite clearly states that the WP which is used to flush out militants is not prohibited by this protocol.
The official statement given confirms the fact that the WP was used as a "obscurant" and was not "created intentionally to set fire or burn".
From the BBC:


Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases."
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

Therefore WP is NOT a WMD and is NOT illegal .


The morality of using this weapon however is debatable.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Just read the "lawyers" view of WMD above my post............omg

I makes me sick, to see people try to "justify" the use of this chem. bomb, esp. when you see the effects of it....and the hole reason we went to war was over WMD.

Plus if the US army is so "stronge" like so many say.....why use this "chemical" on a few hundred men. (oh y'a for Lighting up the area....what the US short off supplies? no flairs around?)

Don't forget......................what comes around.....goes around.

Feel the US is slowly getting deeper and deeper in the hole.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
(oh y'a for Lighting up the area....what the US short off supplies? no flairs around?)

Listen Canadian "friend" ;
Flairs are MADE out of WP, so are signalling equipment and other obscurants. So even if the US used "flairs" to light up the area, we would still be using WP.
As for being the strongest, we are. Just because we are strong doesnt mean we are going to be reckless or foolish to send our troops into a city full of snipers and hiding terrorists.

Your American "friend"
IAF >



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Therefore WP is NOT a WMD and is NOT illegal .


The morality of using this weapon however is debatable.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by IAF101]


Indeed the morality is debatable. As is the morality of those who seek to justify things like this in legal terms. That is how we lose humanity.

By inches.

Not by large jumps, but creeping inches. Sure it's legal. We all know how fair and just the legal system is. Right.

Debating the legality of killing people makes me ill. This is an issue of detachment. If we can just convince ourselves it's legal than it is okay. Back in 2003 we were debating the legality of the invasion. Now we are debating the legality of how we kill each other.

Where is the humanity?

Sorry for the histironics, but we really need to take a step back and see what we are all saying. If this was a debate over say, a stolen car or some other mundane thing, I would say to you IAF101, case closed, you win. Well argued, well debated.

It's not though, is it?

It's about killing people. Snuffing them out. How cold do you have to be to argue whether it is a WMD or not. How lacking in humanity do you have to be to talk about killing your fellow man on such a technical basis? From whom do you expect to win kudos? What brownie points do you seriously think you are making?

But because someone deemed them the "enemy" it is okay. How can any country deem themselves to be the beacon of hope and democracy and the other hand.................

Oh I give up.................


By the way what you lack in flair you make up for in excess...

edited to add some 'flair'

[edit on 16-11-2005 by howmuchisthedoggy]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy

Indeed the morality is debatable. As is the morality of those who seek to justify things like this in legal terms. That is how we lose humanity.

Really ? Where is that morality applied to the people who perpetuate the violence ? Why dont people press them for such morals?
Is it because what you really are against is the US and all these issues are just a veil for your hatered ?
Where was this morality when these people killed 3000+ of our civilians in less than 10 min? Where is the morality applied to them ? All they say is that they do it for Allah, well we do it for Vengence and Vengence we shall have.
The US can prove that it was not violating any legality can our enemies do the same ? Our mercy is our weakness but we try to keep it "legal" if thats what it takes. Everybody there is guilty, some guilty directly due to action others due to their inaction to stop what was wrong.
We will keep our word unlike the terrorists, we WILL give them hell .


Debating the legality of killing people makes me ill. This is an issue of detachment. If we can just convince ourselves it's legal than it is okay.

It is not the dead who are victims, their problems are over. It is the living, who have to bear this burden. If legality is what it takes then so be it.
ill or not the fact remains that these people use our mercy as a weapon against us, guerilla warfare is such that it is trained to be effective against an organised and disciplined army.
Nobody said what we are doing in Iraq is okay, nobody said that it would be a breeze. Everybody knew it would be hell, everybody knew that people would die in the hundereds and everybody knew it HAD to be done.


How cold do you have to be to argue whether it is a WMD or not. How lacking in humanity do you have to be to talk about killing your fellow man on such a technical basis? From whom do you expect to win kudos? What brownie points do you seriously think you are making?

Cold enough to watch 3 of my friends die to terrorists. Cold enough to watch the people who cared about them cry to high heaven for their loved ones, cold enough.....

Humanity? You expect us to have humanity to these people ? Technicallity is merely that "technicality" nothing more. I havent seen anyone say " I dont care whether its legal or not but i think it is morally wrong to do so ", everybody was harping on about how "illegal" it was and now that I have shown that it is not you say, where is the humanity ? where was your humanity then ?



But because someone deemed them the "enemy" it is okay.
By the way what you lack in flair you make up for in excess...

Who is that someone? was it not Saddam who refused to leave Iraq? Was it not these militants who refused to leave Fallujah peacefully? What made them a target, their pride and foolishness or our excess?
BTW I do not seek to make and exhibition of the facts, I present them as they are- raw and brutal.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hmm, I guess it is far more humane to multilate people with HE than it is with WP

The argument is moot, why aren't people protesting the use of HE bombs in Iraq.
So...the humane peoples of the world would prefer people get blown to peices rather than burnt to death ( BTW HE burns people as well ) ? Sounds ridicluous doesn't it



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
According to every report I've heard so far, the WP was used as a psychological weapon. They'd drop it near the spider holes and trenches to flush out the enemy combatants, and when they ran either shoot them, or drop artillery/bombs on their positions.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a good thread that coincides with this topic.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
While I found the video scenes to be gruesome, they were about what one would expect from modern munitions being used in combat. As has been said for many, many years war is hell. However, I found it somewhat disturbing that the video scenes were purposely used to try to sell the mistaken assumptions/misunderstandings of the journalists involved, or else their purposeful disinformation, concerning WMD's being used--that simply is not true and none of the video footage backs up that claim.

Further, think back to the preparation for the actual fighting in Falluja, the civilian population was given something like a week to evacuate the town before action was started. You cannot expect coallition troops to treat remaining people as innocent civilians, yet, in most cases they did. WP was quite obviously used in lieu of napalm because it is less indiscriminately destructive of structures and less likely to result in out of control burning of large tracts of houses, etc.

Again, war is a gruesome business and many people (especially civilians without special briefings beforehand) simply cannot take it, most especially the after action pictures and videos. It does not surprise me that the journalists (and even two ex military) were horrified and wanted to do whatever they could to stop it. When the actual shooting starts, people tend to panic and run and often get mistaken as combatants. Perhaps the next time they are told to evacuate, they will.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Where is that morality applied to the people who perpetuate the violence ? Why dont people press them for such morals?


I am not one of those people. As a member of the Western world I feel it is part of my right to express these views. It is no business of mine what they do in other parts of the world. It is when the US goes in and commits these acts of sanctioned terrorism against another country, supposedly on my behalf, that I feel the need to question them.



Is it because what you really are against is the US and all these issues are just a veil for your hatered ?


I don't hate anybody. Cheap move trying to polarise it into a "either you are with us or you are against us" debate. Oh, if only life was that simple. You claim to be representing the cold hard facts but I only seem to be reading verbatim soundbites from those who would seek to justify an occupation of a country purely for it's natural resources.



Where was this morality when these people killed 3000+ of our civilians in less than 10 min? Where is the morality applied to them ?


The morality was the entire civilized world uniting and standing behind you after 9/11. Where was the morality in using this good will to go around the world spreading misery and carpet-bagging?? Very rich of anyone in the current administration to start talking about morals.



All they say is that they do it for Allah, well we do it for Vengence and Vengence we shall have.


An eye for an eye making the whole world blind and all that jazz. We will have your vengence you say, as long as we have our profits pipe up Halliburton et al in the background!!!! The only winners in this whole mess must laugh their heads off at all this partisan bickering. Whatever happens, they make a profit.



Our mercy is our weakness


Yeah, right. Your inability in not getting caught doing something nasty more like. Lucky you have a moral citzen base keeping an eye over your shoulder or you would be even less "merciful".



Everybody there is guilty, some guilty directly due to action others due to their inaction to stop what was wrong.


Including the women and children? Hmmmmm.....



Humanity? You expect us to have humanity to these people ?


If you don't, what is there left to fight for? Except profit of course.....


was it not Saddam who refused to leave Iraq?

Leave his soverign nation? Warts and all?

Was it not these militants who refused to leave Fallujah peacefully?

Put yourself in their shoes.

What made them a target, their pride and foolishness or our excess?

Your excess in every day life.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
It is no business of mine what they do in other parts of the world. It is when the US goes in and commits these acts of sanctioned terrorism against another country, supposedly on my behalf, that I feel the need to question them.

That is your illusion that the US is going in on your behalf. The US has gone to Iraq on its behalf, on behalf of the values and the principles that it holds true.
You are neither American nor is your country part of the Coalition forces, so in no way is US intervention in Iraq on your behalf.
You have a right to question no doubt, that is you liberty, not only to the "Western World" but to all citizens of the world. But continually deriding one perticular country and its leaders betrays your true intentions, which are quite clearly not inquisitive but motivated by something else. What that is, is quite plain to see.
Also, why do you see it as no business of your what happens in other parts of the world? Are they immune to the Conventions of war, are they not HUMAN ?
So you say that the Western World should only question the countries of the West and vice versa? That is illogical, their should be no divide on morality like that, if their is then it is redundant.



I don't hate anybody. Cheap move trying to polarise it into a "either you are with us or you are against us" debate.

It is not me polarizing the debate, more me questioning your motives for this debate, which I should say have become even more obvious.


but I only seem to be reading verbatim soundbites from those who would seek to justify an occupation of a country purely for it's natural resources.

This is what I am talking about. Why is it that you read this as mere "sound bites of justification" ? Why cant you read this as merely legal documentation that absolves the US of any "legal" responsibility? You cannot because, the truth is not your motive.
Again, the US in Iraq is not after its natural resources, because oil production in the world has not risen in the months since the occupation neither have prices come down. Infact it is the US that is spending billions in Iraq trying to rebuild it but I guess these facts are irrelevant to you as you have already made up your mind.


Where was the morality in using this good will to go around the world spreading misery and carpet-bagging??

So morality dictates that we let the suffering masses under Saddam to continue to suffer and let him starve them to death slowly ? Is THAT your morality ?
Iraq is in a state of transition, democracy and freedoms are new to these people, a period of unrest is expected.



An eye for an eye making the whole world blind and all that jazz.
Whatever happens, they make a profit.

Thats all it is isnt it- JAZZ? Gandhi might have though it was good but it doesnt play well here in America. Its more " a eye for chopping your head off".
How do you know that it is profiting? [Haliburton]



Your inability in not getting caught doing something nasty more like.

We didnt get caught, the use of WP was mentioned in the Army feild mag in Jan 2003 but nobody understood what they ment by WP then, so that is not the Army's fault. Also as I have shown, the US has done nothing "unacceptable" it has merely exercised its options as it has a right to do so against an enemy that has no morals.



Including the women and children? Hmmmmm.....

Why not? The childern would have grown to be the "NextGeneration" for the insurgents and the women didnt care enough for their childeren to take them to safety. They are all responsible in some way or the other.


If you don't, what is there left to fight for? Except profit of course.....

How about security of the Coalition forces, of the Iraqi Governing Council of the Iraqi civilians, or the spread of democracy and liberalization in the middle east, the spread of tolerance, the end to fanaticism, the end to hunger for the people in Iraq and for the overall development of society in the middle east ??



Leave his soverign nation? Warts and all?

I dont think he can call it "his" nation, when he doesnt care for its people.



Put yourself in their shoes.

I did and I found them cowardly and stupid. If they truly were "freedom fighters" they would have marked themselves as the enemy[thereby preventing civilian causalites] and fought just like in Stalingrad or like in the Alamo, they didnt, Muktar al-sad didnt stand and fight, he ran hid and saved himself as his fellow "freedom fighters" got shot to peices. Is that what you would do in their shoes ?



What made them a target, their pride and foolishness or our excess?
Your excess in every day life.

Our only excess is our compassion and our empathy for the insurgents without which we would have been better off.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah - and beyond. Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical.


Independant

The move by the Iraqi government and the growing concern at Westminster follows the Pentagon's confirmation to The Independent earlier this week that WP had been used during the battle of Fallujah last November and the presentation of persuasive evidence that civilians had been among the victims.

The fresh controversy over Fallujah, which has raged for a full 12 months, was initially sparked last week by a documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, which claimed there were numerous civilian casualties. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday he would "not be surprised" if WP had been used by US forces elsewhere in Iraq.

Lt-Col Barry Venable said the incendiary shells were a regular part of the troops' munitions. "I would not rule out the possibility that it has been used in other locations." The Pentagon's admission of WP's use - it can burn a person down to the bone - has proved to be a huge embarrassment to some elements of the US government.


Napalm/Mark 77s
Widespread reports during the initial US-led invasion in March 2003 suggested marines had dropped incendiary bombs over the Tigris river and the Saddam canal on the way to Baghdad.

Cluster bombs
33 civilians, including many children, were reportedly killed in a US cluster bomb attack on Hilla, south of Baghdad. Reports of attacks on Basra were also widespread.

White Phosphorus
Coalition troops were reported to have used WP indiscriminately against civilians and insurgents during the Fallujah offensive of November 2004.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah - and beyond. Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical.


The point of this being???

We know this already, their is a separate thread for this stuff .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join