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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
-original post removed-


My big mouth strikes again...Ill stay outta this one.

Maximu§





[edit on 063030p://111 by LA_Maximus]




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
"Bodies Melted Away Before Us."



A news program on Italian satellite TV, RAI News 24, has substantiated the claim that the US military has been exploiting the dual use of white phosporus. In its siege of Fallujah, the chemical was used on the civilian populace. The story is in today's Repubblica. The Bush Adminstration and the DoD are about to be shamed before the eyes of the world.


This is a partial translation of the article.



"Whitephosphorous against the civilians"
So the Usa took Falluja

ROME - In jargon the soldiers Usa call it Willy Pete. The technical name is white phosphorous. In theory it should be used to illuminate the hostile positionings to the darkness. In practice it was used like chemical arm in the rebel town iraqui of Falluja.


The white phosphorous in action:



The article:
Untranslated Page
Free Web Translator

I'm really glad this is coming out. The truth needs to be out there regardless who believes it or what is said about it. Whatever this is, let's see it and evaluate it before we decide.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
So much hatred against a nation and its people


That their only sin was to have a big country like US wanting to get their hands in their lands.

Their only tread was to have a man call Saddam that was their leader.

Their only weakness is to have oil in their lands.

Yes many forget that Iraqis never asked the US for an invasion and they never came to the US to kill anybody.

That was Al-gaida in Afghanistan.


People tend to forget the history of the Iraqi invasion so fast, I bet many has forgotten that was for liberation of their poor people from a Brutal dictator.

Some seems to forget that the same people that the administration swore to protect are the ones dying under US occupation.

Saddam was killing them now US has manage to move Terrorist create insurgents and dissatisfied Iraqis people so the war on terror looks and sounds credible.

What a pity. . . delibering democracy is such a good thing that every death is worth it.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The white phosphorous in action:



The article:
Untranslated Page
Free Web Translator

I'm really glad this is coming out. The truth needs to be out there regardless who believes it or what is said about it. Whatever this is, let's see it and evaluate it before we decide.



still looks like flares to me. im certain of it. let me go find pics of a C130 firing lots of flares.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
here it is.






dats alot of white phosphorus. now does the video clip show similar to wat the pics show?

looks like Angel coming to protect the crew of the plane.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
While I don't condone the use of napalm/phosphorus bombing, after the horrible fates of those 4 blackwater mercs, adult citizens of Falluja who didn't take part in or condone those atrocities but were too scared to turn in/inform on the perpetrators should have exercised at least a little bit of 'foresight' to gather their relatives/family and evacuate that city - for that savage event "marked" that city and it's defenders certain doom.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian

Originally posted by Dronetek
Sir, how do you know those are burns and not normal decay? How do you know who even killed those people? You don’t, but you are not interested in facts here. You are only concerned with the seriousness of the charge and how it forms your myopic view of America.

Hello Dronetek, Your right scientificly how could i possibly know, my view is only to discover the truth about what i've seen, i want answers and i'll take on board everything i'm reading on this thread, i only come to such a
myopic view simply because i have'nt seen the full picture yet, you must admit the video is disturbing and needs to been analized,
one other thing, why would you think my view of America is shortsighted?



Your view is obviously shortsighted because out of 2 groups who are probably responsible, you pick the guys who are there for the best intentions. Lets not forget the marines are there at the very least, to protect their buddy fighting next to them. The opposition is there to instill fear and fight for the power to impose their harsh rule. They use human shields and schools to fight behind. They kill people by the hundreds and saw the heads off innocent living people. How could you come to the conclusion that America is behind this? There is zero evidence in this video to point a finger at anyone!

Look, I’m not claiming that I have the definitive answer on all of this. However I do know that America is in Iraq for good. You may hate our politicians and our leaders but the fact still remain the average American is a virtuous person. This is especially true when we are talking about American soldiers. These men and woman are in a situation they had no control over, yet strive to do their best to fix Iraq.

We in America are under no illusions. We were wrong about the WMD. That being said, we still support this war. Iraq is messed up and if there is anyone who should risk their lives to fix it, it’s the US.




[edit on 7-11-2005 by Dronetek]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
We in America are under no illusions. We were wrong about the WMD. That being said, we still support this war.


We most certainly do not! Please don't speak for me. I do not support this war. Not one little bit! And millions agree with me. I believe the supporters of this war are in the minority.



Iraq is messed up and if there is anyone who should risk their lives to fix it, it’s the US.


Again, I disagree.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek

We in America are under no illusions. We were wrong about the WMD. That being said, we still support this war. Iraq is messed up and if there is anyone who should risk their lives to fix it, it’s the US.
[edit on 7-11-2005 by Dronetek]


Funny Iraq wasn't broken before US intervention, is like that say that goes around, you brake it you own it. Right?


cjf

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
A majority of the combat footage used can be downloaded off of the internet; the interviews seem to be what they are. This thread should be examined by those which regular the ‘military’ forum. I will add….

White phosphorus is found commonly in most ordnance (grenades, smoke, tracers, flares etc.) as a source ‘igniter’ and/or component. Exposure can cause a necrotic ‘look’, however the vast majority of bodies shown in the video are not sufficient evidence to show ‘proof’ to the allegations.

The ‘validation’ of use (Phosphorus as an offensive combat weapon) seems to stem from statements from two US ex-military personnel (Marines) and or hearsay.

References to ‘Whiskey Pete” is in no way ‘factuated’ by the interviewees statements. The two US ex-military (Marines) are not (even loosely) ‘FO’ types by their articulations and this would have been mentioned to build their creditability.
'
The US military does not openly refer to ordnance by 'composition' and I doubt these 'lower level' general ground forces would understand communications to and from… e.g. an USAF CCT.

Briefly:

‘Whiskey’ call may mean a B-52 but ‘Whisk’ communicated may mean a C-130, typically on the active ‘plats’ is an AC-130U. ‘Pete’ is an E-6a but ‘Petit’ is also a C-130 called as above. So ‘Whisk Petit’ could easily be heard as ‘Whiskey Pete’ by non-trained trained ground personnel 'listening in' as described.

Again, ordnance is not directed/called overtly by composition and or applicable/associative acronym.

I see some points positive to the topic, however overall…this generally seems to be more manufactured anti-war propaganda.


.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by cjf]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
This is what happens when individuals want to hide in city houses and fight from inside peoples homes instead of fighting away form large population centers. I don't see what the problem is here.

Now Marge, you say Iraqi was not “broken” before the US went in? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

Also, I as an American, do support us staying in Iraq as long as it takes to accomplish the mission. Sure I have my doubts about why we went in, but that is over now, we have to focus on accomplishing what we set out to do. Retreating with our tail between our legs because images on TV disturb some people is not an option.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cornelia
this video is made by professional journalist of the italian public network, like the BBC.


Your point?!
You trying to indicate that even "professional journalist" are somehow immune to lying, deception, half-truths, and being harbingers of propaganda?
Really?
You where where when Dan Rather lied, deceived, and spread propaganda? You are aware that he too was a "professional journalist"? I could name a few others, but my gut feeling is that it wouldnot make the least bit of difference to you. At any rate...

...This Italian video piece is complete garbage, just as indicated by kozmo. In case you missed it the first go-round: g-a-r-b-a-g-e propaganda, rehashed how many times more concerning the alleged US WMDs uses in the battle of Fallujah?!
:shk:







seekerof

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
That angel picture is a countermeasure I believe, against SAMs and RPGs and what-not. Looks real exotic, but it isn't designed for use against a population.

Purely defensive weapon, as far as I know.

I suppose if you were flyin' real low...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Again, do these guys actually have any evidence to back up their claims? Some Chemical weapons can blister flesh away and leave clothes intact. But it will leave chemical residues that can be tested for. White Phosphorous burns on contact with water I beleive, and thats why its so horrific on flesh, but it will still burn clothes, especially if its already burning.

I haven't watched the video, it shouldn't be necessary, what evidence is presented for any of these chemical weapons?

Also, why would the US bother to US napalm and, of all things, white phosophorous? I can understand using sarin and vx, to wipe out the city, but that obviously didn't happen. And certainly napalm isn't needed to burn buildings in falluja, so....what gives???



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   


here it is


And why, exactly, would a C-130 be flying at 200 feet (judging by the pics) over an urban combat area, dropping flares? What purpose would this serve?

You can denounce this as "propaganda" (by whom, secret Jihadist agents that have somehow infiltrated the mainstream EU media?) all you want, but the images are pretty clear. All the arch posturing and convoluted denial you kids can muster won't change them.



I haven't watched the video, it shouldn't be necessary, what evidence is presented for any of these chemical weapons?


What evidence would you accept? If documentary video evidence is somehow not enough, would forensics tests suffice, or would you simply damn them as "propaganda" too? Of course you would. No amount of evidence is going to convince you, because you have already made up your mind.

To be fair, white phosphorus is generally considered to be an incendiary, rather than a checmical weapon. But the use of incendiaries in heavily populated urban areas is bad enough.

[edit on 11/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

as posted by Nygdan
I haven't watched the video, it shouldn't be necessary, what evidence is presented for any of these chemical weapons?

There was no evidence presented 'before' or 'during', only alleged evidences of thier uses and the allegations to boot on what may have been used 'after' the battle of Fallujah.

The alleged evidences given were those most associated with white phosphorus uses and exposures, all of which, was exposed and discussed the very first time that the battle of Fallujah topic hit ATS in 2004. Seems to me that this Italian video piece is simply picking up where Giuliana Sgrena left off.....

Btw, Nygdan, the white phosphorus was used for the laying of smoke [ie: cover], etc.

Quite frankly, the video is nothing more than an anti-war propaganda piece bearing half-truths and lacking empirical evidences other than assertions. Great stuff for the average run-of-the-mill conspiracy related...







seekerof

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Just an obvservation of this thread:

Two lines of thought are prominant.

Side 1 : US used WMDs in Fallujah battle
Side 2 : US DID NOT use WMDs in Fallujah battle.

Both sides are all but certain of their claims.

Side 1 : Provides video, photo, witness & journalist claiming it's use.
Side 2 : Rebukes those images and testimony as 'lies', 'propaganda', 'BS' etc etc.

We're now in the all too familiar stage of Side 2 denying a claim outright by calling it 'anti-American' and by a belief that the US would never use such weapons.... anymore. No further investigation or logic is needed because such use of WMDs wouldn't be American in the first place.

Side 1 how ever, wants investigation and wants these claims either justified without doubt or else proven false without doubt and is open to all view points which OFFER PROOF of their claims other than emotional diatribes and ideals.

Did the US use various versions of WMDs in Fallujah?
It looks very possible from an angle which expects anything from the US.
It looks highly unlikely from an angle which believes the US is a righteous force of the world.

One thing we do know is this:

Side 2 used the same logic but in a complete opposite over Iraqs use and possession of WMDs prior to the war - that is, Iraq had them, Saddam was going to use them and there's no need for further investigation into the matter. Some even still believe it's possible to find WMDs in Iraq and are holding onto that initial provocation. Shoot first, ask questions later was the policy that was used.

AGAIN, if we can salvage ANYTHING from the Iraq war, it should be major lessons learnt - not from a miltary tatics point of view, but from jumping to conclusions and failing to allow open investigation into issues which have obvious polar opposite claims.

The impossible about Saddam was true - He was telling the truth and did not have WMDs.

Now what if the impossible again is true - America has been using a form of WMD to wage war?

How would that change things?
It would seem very much in the interests of the US to not allow this information to come out before a good PR campaign can be organised to handle it (like the abu Gharib photos) but then again, how could the US use such weapons and not expect it to come back to bite them?

One thing is for certain, this needs to be investigated and people need to allow an open and honest look into this issue because if founded, it has the power to change this war and even subdue future rushes to war.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I don't know if either white phosphorous or napalm would be considered a WMD.
As I said above they are incendieries not true chemical weapons.

But they are indiscriminite area weapons that kill combatant and bystander alike over a wide swath of ground, and their use in urban environments belies stated US policies about taking pains to avoid "collateral" casualties.

To me it seems the current leadership is perfectly willing to live with plenty of "collateral" casualties. As long as they can keep it quiet.

[edit on 11/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Lordy that was tough to watch all the way. I've yet to see more BS packed into one video, than this lengthy drivel of suppositions, lies, accusations, theories, thoughts, personal opinion, and large amounts of 3rd hand hearsay.

The two EX-Marines (I refuse to call them former Marines. Former Marines have class, integrity, and self discipline) obviously have an axe to grind. Remember, whatever their story, they VOLUNTEERED for the Marines. To volunteer is to accept all that comes your way, there are NO mysteries in joining the military. The first guy, by his own BLOG, was NOT in Fallujah for the fighting: "I was in Falluja during the last two days of the final assault. My mission was much different from that of the brave and weary infantry and marines involved in the major fighting. I was on an escort mission, accompanied by a squad who’s task it was to protect a high brass figure in the combat zone." As you can see, he not only did not participate, but has high praise for his fellow Marines that he later spits on in the video interview.

Garret Reppenhagen, the second guy, claims to have been a Scout/Sniper in the Marines. I could not find anything about him in my many sources. He also does not refer to himself as being in Fallujah during the sweep. Kinda difficult to first hand report anything....if you are not there.

The Video shows NO EVIDENCE, has NO video of ANY alleged attrocities, and relies on reports from other people that WERE NOT THERE, using film footage from 40 years ago in Vietnam. (BTW, the little girl in the 'Nam footage? She was accidently hit by ARVN forces, not American. She herself verified this many years later)

If you are of so little mind, or so terrifically hatefull of America and/or George Bush, then you will believe everything in this video......and that Tinkerbells pixie dust can really help you fly.

BS, BS, BS all



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army

If you are of so little mind, or so terrifically hatefull of America and/or George Bush, then you will believe everything in this video......and that Tinkerbells pixie dust can really help you fly.

BS, BS, BS all



Funny thing is, a lot of people (even countries) were saying the same thing about Americans believing Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, a Nuke program and the ability to attack America within 30 - 45 mins..... but America invaded anyway.

Claiming "Anti-American" isn't counter-evidence. America has long lost it's ability to claim it's word as truth and claims against it as pure propaganda.

There needs to be more evidence for this case, something which can be produced in a court of law. Sadly, video and photographs are rarely viable proof alone.

Usually, the more the 'it's/your anti-American' crowd shrug things off, there's usually some truth to be found in the claims. Most truths are found somewhere in the middle and in this case, that's more than enough to warrent a fair and full investigation into what happened and by who.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join