-original post removed-


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

Maximu§





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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?!







seekerof

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Seekerof]

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...

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???

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]

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.

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]

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.