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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
^^^ Seems like more BS to me.

What of these allegations of poison gasses used ? Why is there no empiracal evidence such as samples of these substances etc .

You know what I think would be more likely, the resistance/terrorists probably found a cache of Saddam era CW and used them on their own people to try an score a propaganda victory.
After all they have shown they like killing their own people, haven't they


I know deep down you know this to be the truth




posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
...Know what??? You can't employ logic on illogical people, you can't use reason on unreasonable people and you can never, ever make a blind see. People like aape etc... are perpetually clueless. Who in the heck needs facts when you have a perfectly good propaganda piece like this one to tell you what to think. I mean it's a heck of a lot easier to just allow some wingbat group of idealogues to distort images with the appropriate amount of disinformation to formulate an opinion for you - I mean why bother thinking or paying attention to thsoe pesky facts??? Especially when they don't support your prejudiced opinion in the first place, right aape???

And aape - we all know that dying is a hell of a lot more painful and tortuous than simply having your eyes, skin and lungs blister up to the point that you are permanently disfigured and riddled with cancer that will eventually lead to a slow and peinful death right?
Oh, and by the way - the other "regular battlefield gasses" that you referneced in your last post ARE ALL ILLEGAL! Come on back when you get a clue - K?



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

I mean why bother thinking or paying attention to thsoe pesky facts??? Especially when they don't support your prejudiced opinion in the first place, right aape???

And aape - we all know that dying is a hell of a lot more painful and tortuous than simply having your eyes, skin and lungs blister up to the point that you are permanently disfigured and riddled with cancer that will eventually lead to a slow and peinful death right?
Oh, and by the way - the other "regular battlefield gasses" that you referneced in your last post ARE ALL ILLEGAL! Come on back when you get a clue - K?


Man this is getting on my nerves..Do they teach you to read in usa?
You just made like 10 same points that i did..and after that you are trying to say that i´m biased antibush antiusa monger who wants bad for all..
hmm...what if you tried to actually read and understand what other people are trying to tell you?
I said that all of those gasses were invented at ww1 and BANNED!!
You know what? Usa hasn´t made any treaties involving napalm use on civilian targets and usa isn´t using geneve convention treaties at iraq because "insurgents wont wear militia outfit"
yeah..i got a clue...
In other civilized countries napalm and wp are also illegal. You just proved my point that people will just start insulting after they can´t win the debate..
-aape



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aape

I said that all of those gasses were invented at ww1 and BANNED!!


Well nerve agents were produced by the Germans in the 1930's and 40's. And VX the most potent of the lot was invented by the Brits in 1953. They weren't banned until the 60's, but were obviously still used on a small scale.


You know what? Usa hasn´t made any treaties involving napalm use on civilian targets and usa isn´t using geneve convention treaties at iraq because "insurgents wont wear militia outfit"


Hmm, any weapon used on a civilian target is illegal is it not, your point is moot. War is war and civilians get killed on both sides, however the difference is the US doesn't deliberately target civlians whereas the insurgents do.
Also, the Geneva convention only applies if both parties are signatories or if both parties adhere to it. The insurgents are neither signatories or abide by it, therefore ....




In other civilized countries napalm and wp are also illegal. You just proved my point that people will just start insulting after they can´t win the debate..
-aape


Most countries don't have napalm, however I think you'll find almost every country has WP. It is a standard munition

You should really get your facts straight.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Il agree totally..That geneve thing isn´t my speaciality anyway so the reason truly is that insurgents haven´t signed the treaty
..kind of humoristic..If it would be your country in flames and u would be rebelling against invasion the geneve treaty wouldn´t apply to you either
..
And yes most countries have wp.
When i was at finnish army we were specced about napalm and wp.
But because finnish defence force is a defence force they are made for flaming the woods. Never ever they would be used on a civilian target, it´s un ethical and very bad moral. Wp is just so hazardous material that no one gets to try those wp grenades..They are more of use as an booby trap because the thrower of an wp grenade would be likely killed also.
-aape



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   


War is war and civilians get killed on both sides, however the difference is the US doesn't deliberately target civlians whereas the insurgents do.


Well that's a cutesy, evasive way of putting it. We don't deliberately target civilians, no - they're a waste of expensive munitions. We've proved however that we're happy to waste civilians by the score if they happen to be in our way. Remember the residential apartment complexes that got the gift of 2000lb bombs, because we thought Saddam might be hiding there? We killed dozens of civilians in their homes, guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place. And that's only the tip of the iceberg...

The truth is we've killed plenty of innocent civilians in Iraq, and every time we do, we chalk up new recruits for the insurgency. Who in turn go and kill more civilians... In the end this was a war of choice, we were not attacked by Iraq, however awful Saddam's regime was. We chose to start a needless war, and the moral cost of it belongs entirely to us. If we hadn't invaded, there would be no insurgency.

[edit on 11/9/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I downloaded this video a few days ago, but have only just seen it now.

Some of the pictures are admittidley horrific, but i think there is an answer to the voiceovers question.
The bodies seem to be burnt and their skin peeling off, yet their clothes appear to be intact.

This is what happens when a body decomposes. This is what it looks like.
I know, i have had past experiance in this kind of thing. I have witnessed burns etc, and they look nothing like what is shown on this video clip.

The fact that he is interviewing an alledgedly ex marine is somewhat unbelievable. The voiceover asks a question then the ex marine is edited in to give an answer. All pre meditaed stuff by the film maker.

This has got to be worst case of anti US propaganda i have ever seen. The accent of the narrator is also from someone from the UK.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Bikereddie]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I downloaded this video a few days ago, but have only just seen it now.

Some of the pictures are admittidley horrific, but i think there is an answer to the voiceovers question.
The bodies seem to be burnt and their skin peeling off, yet their clothes appear to be intact.

This is what happens when a body decomposes. This is what it looks like.
I know, i have had past experiance in this kind of thing. I have witnessed burns etc, and they look nothing like what is shown on this video clip.

The fact that he is interviewing an alledgedly ex marine is somewhat unbelievable. The voiceover asks a question then the ex marine is edited in to give an answer. All pre meditaed stuff by the film maker.

This has got to be worst case of anti US propaganda i have ever seen. The accent of the narrator is also from someone from the UK.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Bikereddie]


It boggles my mind that anyone is taking it seriously.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Dronetek]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
My points exactly.
I have past experiance like i stated. That is why i posted some kind of debunk.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   
edited video? -check

british accents? -check

denial of illegal war? -double check!!

all validity to claims properly dismantled; whew....



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   



U.S. Army publication confirms United States used incendiary weapon in Falluja

The March edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication, reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white phosphorous in Fallujah, Iraq, a Daily Kos diarist has found.

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the article's author wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

A second publication, Infantry Magazine, also alleges that white phosphorous was used near the Iraqi city of Irbil. Newsroom sources tell RAW STORY that the New York Times will be running a short piece on the Italian documentarian whose video documented the weapon's use Thursday.

More...



Interesting.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ok,
Wp White Phorphorus rounds. They have been used for decades since the Korean war by all militaries world wide. Are they "incendary" in the sense that the story is attempting to put forth? Are they used to burn people? NO
Let's take a look at what WP is used for:



Background: White phosphorus has been used commonly by the military as an incendiary agent or as an igniter for munitions. It commonly is found in hand grenades, mortar and artillery rounds, and smoke bombs.
Munitions-quality white phosphorus commonly is found in solid form. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen.
Most injuries associated with white phosphorus are the result of accidents due to either human or mechanical error.


www.emedicine.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Are they "incendary" in the sense that the story is attempting to put forth? Are they used to burn people? NO


The article above continues as follows:



A terrifying video about the U.S. use of the weapon in Fallujah is available at Information Clearinghouse.

The U.S. has said any use of the weapon was for "lighting" purposes.

According to the Toxic Disease registry, "White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death."

Wikipedia adds, "Detonating a WP shell in a confined area (like firing into a building) will indeed cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those inside who do not or can not flee, with the additional consequence of setting the room(s) alight. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns."

Use of white phosphorus is not banned by name in any international treaty. However, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations. The United States is among several nations that are not signatories to the convention.



[edit on 10-11-2005 by loam]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

used it for screening missions


i.e to provide cover


using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."


nothing new here...move along.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Here is a Nice Piece for all You to Read:



The Pentagon has always admitted it used phosphorus during last year's assault on the city, which US commanders said was an insurgent stronghold. But they claimed they used the brightly burning shells "very sparingly" and only to and only to illuminate combat areas..

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

Source:
Independant

So - the Pentagons says that the DID use White Phosphorus - but ONLY to and only to "very sparingly just to illuminate combat areas"

Hmmm...

Do we buy the Pentagon Story, that will ALWAYS Protect the interests of the Army and will try to "Bend" the Truth or Hide it for as long as need, due to the National Security.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."




So - the Pentagons says that the DID use White Phosphorus - but ONLY to and only to "very sparingly just to illuminate combat areas"

Hmmm...

Do we buy the Pentagon Story, that will ALWAYS Protect the interests of the Army and will try to "Bend" the Truth or Hide it for as long as need, due to the National Security.


so if they did use white phrosphorus dat dont mean its a war crime since they say to lit up the night on insurgents. true? after all yer source says not to use on civlians but on military targets and since the insurgents use the city, it is a military target where many insurgents hide in the homes of the civilians.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Wtf is this dat and den kick that you are on deltaboy? Im sorry but its annoying.

As with any other thing in life im sure the truth of this video lies somewhere in the middle of both extremes.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Escrotumus
Wtf is this dat and den kick that you are on deltaboy? Im sorry but its annoying.


I got to agree with this. It’s near impossible to comprehend your posts, much less take them seriously.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Escrotumus
Wtf is this dat and den kick that you are on deltaboy? Im sorry but its annoying.



apology accepted. get use to it. aniways back to the topic. it aint a warcrime if the military is using it on the civilians on purpose.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
What many people in this thread are also forgetting here is the timeline of events in Falluja. The US had that place surrounded for a LONG time. They were airlifting fliers and playing on the radio that ALL CIVILIANS SHOULD LEAVE the city since they were about to LAY WASTE to it. I remember this because people in the US were bitching that the terrorists were going to sneak out among the TENS OF THOUSANDS of refugees that left the city.
SO, did civilians die in Fallujah, yes. Did the US give plenty of advanced warning that they were coming, yes. A body that is hit by a piece of shrapnel, or a bullet, or burned to death, will swell and turn black as it decays, regardless of the means of its demise. The presentation of this video is so blatantly skewed to make it worthless as a factual representation of the battle of Fallujah. By the way, I am NOT blaming the civilians for not leaving Fallujah. Many of the women and children were probably not allowed to leave by their families. Also the insurgents were planning on using images of dead civilians from the very start of the battle. Gotta have some charred women and children to get to the psych of the American public. See, the enemy knows that ours is an army which must answer to its people, and that is its greatest weakness. However, it is also that culpability that makes the US forces some of the most precision and life-sparing armed forces around. What do you think Fallujah would have looked like if it had been the imperialist Japanese of the 1940s who attacked it? Just food for thought. Do you think they would have warned the city weeks in advance that they were going to attack?

-Getting sick of this thread



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join