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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

by G_o_l_d_y:
Well i wont comment your post. All i can add is im absolutly sure u would explode if on those pics were dead US civilians.


For starters...you are absolutely wrong.

Secondly, your not absolutely sure of anything, you are ASSuming. Careful there...

Thirdly, there are many, many photos of US casualties all over the net. While I can't say Text, I do see them for what they are... dead bodies.



You sir are a Sick puppy.




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
What bothers me is that people here are so misinformed. WP is not a WMD
High Explosives have a more devastating effect pound for pound - wait are they chemical weapons as well because they use chemicals ? Why can't people make a distinction, are they that dull ?

It is laughable that some here think that someone who has been burnt is worse than some who has been ripped to pieces by HE.

Anyway, some members here, have been exposed by their utterly flase statements. They are either uninformed or dull.


You know what, your argument is worthless. We're not talking about high explosives right now. And we're not talking about the best or worst way to die. Though trying to diminish one excrutiating death by pointing to another as worse may have some revelance in a "this is how I DON'T want to die" thread...it doesn't really address the fact that the foootage on this video, the pictures of the dead in this video, the interviews with investigators after the attack, and the DEFENSE MINISTER OF BRITAIN confirm the use of indiscriminate incendiary devices being used on a civilian population center.

Which is illegal. And it doesn't matter if some one calls them WMDs or not - the use of these weapons confirmed in this video...IS ILLEGAL.

www.un.org...


Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)
Geneva, 10 October 1980

Protocol IV,

Vienna, 13 October 1995

Protocol II, as amended,

Geneva, 3 May 1996

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I just watched the video. Not much new to reveal, a lot of stuff anyone of us keeping tabs on it have seen already. Some points brought up during the thread which I think we can put to bed and carry on with a more constructive discussion.

1. The title of the thread is misleading

This video is not about WMD being used in Falluja. The term WMD is evoked to raise outrage and condemnation of the US. What was being investigated was a number of things, namely how information on the battle was unnecessarily supressed and how the US had been using chemical munitions while claiming not to, despite much evidence to the contrary.

2. The US Forces used chemical weapons

Right, right so they didn't use Napalm. They used MK 77's. A rose by any other name would burn just as sweet. The video is looped over and over showing an aircraft showering what appears to be White Phosphorous down on a group of buildings. Now once would have been enough, but the 4 or so times it is repeated to give the impression that it is a much bigger assault than it was, was yet again biased and misleading.

Also, shame on the people trying to pass those off as aircraft flairs. Watch the video of the Napalm being used in Vietnam again, watch the scene in the documentary again. Shooting flairs at the ground? Come on!

3. The Iraqi's play the game just as well

While I don't doubt for an instant that the American media seeks to portray their boys in the best possible light, please remember that the Iraqi's aren't a bunch of uneducated sand people. They are a technically and politically savvy modern race. They know how to pluck the heartstrings with pictures of 1 legged babies as oppossed to pictures of them sending 12 year olds out with AK 47's under their arms.

4. Bias versus "What you SEE"

Okay, ending on that Apache turkey shoot video shows more bias. Oh! you never showed they were armed shout the hawks! Oh! they are shouting unarmed men shout the doves!

Let's see the trees for the wood instead. You saw in a number of seperate cases the US forces policy to shoot at unarmed and surrendering people. Okay, so maybe the Iraq's were known to play nasty tricks before, but I think both the guy lying on the floor of the mosque and the other dude half riddled with 30mm chain gun rounds on that dark Iraqi lane weren't much of a threat and did not need to be gunned down in such cold-blood.

Yet again this thread shows danger signs of spiralling into an Anti-US/Anti-War rant. Black and white it is not. It is a deep and dirty grey mud pit and we would do well to get down on our knees and sift through the mud rather than flinging it.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Why so NumberCruncher?

G_o_l_d_y made the assumption that if his/her linked photo gallery contained photos of American dead it would incite more of a reaction.

I was simply clarifying his assumption was wrong. There are photos of war dead from both sides all over the Internet. Do I enjoy looking at these types of photos? NO!

My point is...Anyone can take a photo, put their little descriptive text under/next to it and say....Look! Look! See! there's proof! Yet how can one be certain the "descriptive text" is representative of the actual situation surrounding said photo?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

You know what, your argument is worthless. We're not talking about high explosives right now. And we're not talking about the best or worst way to die. Though trying to diminish one excrutiating death by pointing to another as worse may have some revelance in a "this is how I DON'T want to die" thread...it doesn't really address the fact that the foootage on this video, the pictures of the dead in this video, the interviews with investigators after the attack, and the DEFENSE MINISTER OF BRITAIN confirm the use of indiscriminate incendiary devices being used on a civilian population center.


:@@
on't wet your pants. Death is death doesn't matter how it came about. I doubt many people were killed using WP as it is far less effective than HE.
WP as has been pointed out many times is primarily used for smoke screens, it just isn't that effective at killing people.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Right, right so they didn't use Napalm. They used MK 77's. A rose by any other name would burn just as sweet. The video is looped over and over showing an aircraft showering what appears to be White Phosphorous down on a group of buildings. Now once would have been enough, but the 4 or so times it is repeated to give the impression that it is a much bigger assault than it was, was yet again biased and misleading.


Dont think it was a plane. Explosion are 3 and third s looped again and becomes "fourth".



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I stupidly haven't been keeping up to date with this war and whilst the material exhibited was horrific, I still wasn't surprised by the content of the video.

Perhaps the amount of violence and destruction in the world right now has desensitised me
I'm sure I am not the only person who has to expect the worst.

I'm not extremely educated on all of the political aspects of this war but, it seems illogical from all areas of interests of the American government to violate the very reasoning of the justification used for the invasion of Iraq.

Am I right in the understanding that the allied forces had the resources to win the war without creating potential negative attention to themselves from elsewhere?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Why so NumberCruncher?

G_o_l_d_y made the assumption that if his/her linked photo gallery contained photos of American dead it would incite more of a reaction.

I was simply clarifying his assumption was wrong. There are photos of war dead from both sides all over the Internet. Do I enjoy looking at these types of photos? NO!

My point is...Anyone can take a photo, put their little descriptive text under/next to it and say....Look! Look! See! there's proof! Yet how can one be certain the "descriptive text" is representative of the actual situation surrounding said photo?


Ok, thats fair enough.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
As per my prior submission to this thread...

A picture is worth a thousand words, a video even more. The trick being how to crop, edit, adjust that picture/video to best suit your desired interpretation.

Although I disagree with their conclusions, I have to admit they did a good job of "cropping" the various material to support their agenda.

In the end, I feel they came up short of the intended goal.

IMO the only way this holds any WOW factor would be if presented to someone who has been on "walk about" for the last 4-5 years.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

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?



well let me see.......o yeah because a C-130 in the battle for Fallujah which is one of the most resistance place in Iraq is an actually a gunship maybe? maybe u wonder about dat? wat does a C-130 gunship do?

www.fas.org...

The AC-130H Spectre gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Other missions include perimeter and point defense, escort, landing, drop and extraction zone support, forward air control, limited command and control, and combat search and rescue.



During Vietnam, gunships destroyed more than 10,000 trucks and were credited with many life-saving close air support missions. AC-130s suppressed enemy air defense systems and attacked ground forces during Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada. This enabled the successful assault of Point Salines airfield via airdrop and airland of friendly forces.

The gunships had a primary role during Operation Just Cause in Panama by destroying Panamanian Defense Force Headquarters and numerous command and control facilities by surgical employment of ordnance in an urban environment. As the only close air support platform in the theater, Spectres were credited with saving the lives of many friendly personnel.

During Operation Desert Storm, Spectres provided air base defense and close air support for ground forces. AC-130s were also used during Operations Continue Hope and United Shield in Somalia, providing close air support for United Nations ground forces. The gunships have most recently played a pivotal role during operations in support of the NATO mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, providing air interdiction against key targets in the Sarajevo area.

The AC-130 is an excellent fire support platform with outstanding capabilities. With its extremely accurate fire control system, the AC-130 can place 105mm, 40mm and 25mm munitions on target with first round accuracy. The crew of these aircraft are extremely proficient working in military operations in urban terrain [MOUT] environments.


read the last part of the sentence in the fifth paragraph and the answer to yer question about why a C-130 be in an urban combat area.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I haven't seen the video, but 200 feet is too low for an AC-130 to operate and extremely dangerous - ithat doesn't make sense.
These planes have to be thousands of feet in the air so as to be able to bring their guns to bare. They fly in a counter clockwise circle so as to be able to rain down a cone of fire ontp point targets. It is simply impossible to do this from 200 feet even a thousand feet.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

[


We most certainly do! The MAJORITY do support this war - sorry to burst your bubble pal! Who won the last election... by a MAJORITY!? Do not confuse the President's low approval rating with condemnation for the war in Iraq. You are clearly in the minority, now deal with it!



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I haven't seen the video, but 200 feet is too low for an AC-130 to operate and extremely dangerous - ithat doesn't make sense.
These planes have to be thousands of feet in the air so as to be able to bring their guns to bare. They fly in a counter clockwise circle so as to be able to rain down a cone of fire ontp point targets. It is simply impossible to do this from 200 feet even a thousand feet.


xmotex says its 200 feet in his view judging from the pics. 200 ft or not, all i know its close to the ground and in complete darkness with no moon, which the gunship crew would view as a threat to their stealthiness. i guess they want to be close to the ground as possible. and dats dangerous and dats why they fire flares to make sure nobody is able to lock on if possible in the darkness but the crew aint takin any chances.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I haven't seen the video, but 200 feet is too low for an AC-130 to operate and extremely dangerous - ithat doesn't make sense.
These planes have to be thousands of feet in the air so as to be able to bring their guns to bare. They fly in a counter clockwise circle so as to be able to rain down a cone of fire ontp point targets. It is simply impossible to do this from 200 feet even a thousand feet.



C-130s offten fly low to drop stuff. I know, I used to work with them EVERYDAY.


Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

[


We most certainly do! The MAJORITY do support this war - sorry to burst your bubble pal! Who won the last election... by a MAJORITY!? Do not confuse the President's low approval rating with condemnation for the war in Iraq. You are clearly in the minority, now deal with it!


Amen brother!

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Dronetek]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y
Some of people call it anti US propaganda - i call it war crimes and crimes against humanity. Here is a set of Fallujah body photos. Warning tho... pics are extreme. Hope all of u blind US "patriots" are realy proud on your troops and your president.

dahrjamailiraq.com... m28&page=1



HOLY CRAP!!!
Pictures of DEAD PEOPLE killed in a WAR!!!
What now!? Maybe we should just cut and run cuz some people were killed while fighting in a war!


Hey, I'm not trying to be insentitive to the families of those killed in armed conflict but this IS AN ARMED CONFLICT! We're not playing tag or hide n go seek for Christ's sake - IT"S STINKIN' WAR! People die! Get over it!

Oh and by the way - YES, I am EXTREMELY proud of our troops and of our President for having the backbone and fortitude to do what is right and what the rest of the spineless world was too Chickensh*t to do - Enforce the 18 stinkin' resolutions that the UN passed against Saddam and his regime!


[edit on 8-11-2005 by kozmo]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
When the semantics of how to kill people comes up.

We seem preoccupied with the "fair" or "right" way to do it. Whether it's war, capital punishment, or the legal slicing and dicing of the degrees of murder, humanity seems compelled to somehow sanitize that which is distasteful.

War is hell, and there are no "referees," at least not for the losing team.

Dismissed.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek


C-130s offten fly low to drop stuff. I know, I used to work with them EVERYDAY.


I know, I said AC-130 which doesn't fly low to drop off stuff.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y
Some of people call it anti US propaganda - i call it war crimes and crimes against humanity. Here is a set of Fallujah body photos. Warning tho... pics are extreme. Hope all of u blind US "patriots" are realy proud on your troops and your president.

dahrjamailiraq.com... m28&page=1



HOLY CRAP!!!
Pictures of DEAD PEOPLE killed in a WAR!!!
What now!? Maybe we should just cut and run cuz some people were killed while fighting in a war!


Hey, I'm not trying to be insentitive to the families of those killed in armed conflict but this IS AN ARMED CONFLICT! We're not playing tag or hide n go seek for Christ's sake - IT"S STINKIN' WAR! People die! Get over it!

Oh and by the way - YES, I am EXTREMELY proud of our troops and of our President for having the backbone and fortitude to do what is right and what the rest of the spineless world was too Chickensh*t to do - Enforce the 18 stinkin' resolutions that the UN passed against Saddam and his regime!


[edit on 8-11-2005 by kozmo]


you're lack of caring for your fellow human beings is the reason the human race does not deserve to move forward. The world would be better off without you.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

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



I have been here next to you my fellow American and perhaps not as blind as you have been when it comes to the realities in Iraq, and it's historical struggle and the way the US has deal with.

It seems that your side of realities in Iraq only goes as far as the US invasion after turning into Bush war on terror maybe you should get a more wider view of US friendlessness to Iraq and the down fall from grace.

It's actually mentally challenging and educational.

Try, you may learn something more than just bushes crusade for liberation with destruction.


By the way can you war happy patriotic get in your mind that Iraq is not a war it was for Liberation

Funny how many forget about Bush reason for war as he sold them to the public.

To conveniently turning the liberation into a war on terror so the death and destruction in Iraq will get more meaningful and appealing to the weak minded.


Human beings that advocate for the destruction of other human being under false pretenses, has not problem doing the same to their own people.

That is why human beings that kills under the pretenses of ideologies has a reason to die for.

Very dangerous human beings indeed.

Only when other human beings seek personal and hidden agendas and can turn the struggle to their benefits.

Bush and his administration is a good example of it.





[edit on 8-11-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
We most certainly do! The MAJORITY do support this war - sorry to burst your bubble pal!


Are you sure you know what 'majority' means?


What, now?



ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2005. N=1,202 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS. RV = registered voters.

10/30 - 11/2/05

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve 36%
Disapprove 64%
Unsure 1%

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

Approve 39%
Disapprove 60%
Unsure 1%

"Again thinking about the goals versus the costs of the war, so far in your opinion has there been an acceptable or unacceptable number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq?"

Acceptable 25%
Unacceptable 73%
Unsure 2%

"Do you think the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States?"

Has 46%
Has Not 52%
Unsure 2%

"In making its case for war with Iraq, do you think the Bush Administration told the American public what it believed to be true, or intentionally misled the American public?"

What It Believed To Be True 44%
Intentionally Misled 55%
Unsure 2%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Approve 32%
Disapprove 62%
Unsure 6%

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Did Right Thing 42%
Should Have Stayed Out 50%
Unsure 8%

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"

Stay as Long as It Takes 43%
Leave ASAP 50%
Unsure 7%



Originally posted by kozmo
Who won the last election... by a MAJORITY!? Do not confuse the President's low approval rating with condemnation for the war in Iraq. You are clearly in the minority, now deal with it!


Yeah. Don't confuse the president's being 'elected' with the way people feel about him AND the war TODAY.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join