The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Then why do terrorist organizations take credit for them?



What terrorist organisations? Al CIA da? and abu MOSSAD al zarqawi?



LOL, seems so. SS hasn't responded, I think I may have lifted the veil from her eyes. She can see herslef for who she really is


Rogue
. If you can't explain how it is that i see iraq war as a game, then your post is nothing but empty slander and not worth responding to.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Syrian Sister]




posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

But looking not at what they said but what they did on the ground, they turned some of the evacuaties back, because they where men Or boys over the age of 15. And sometimes teh evacuaties where shot at the checkpoints.



I know that you would like it to be The World According to Syrian Sister, but until then, can we get some facts in your accusations? Any video proof? Any unbiased 3rd party reporting?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   


Souljia-
Can you show me a War, that was played by the "Rules" lately?


This is my beef with your statement there. It is the insurgents who are not playing by ther rules when they launch an offensive attack on the coalition troops from within an area that has civilian occupants in it, then get on the insurgents for putting the civilians in danger. You cant expect troops to not return fire, unless they are in a mosque, hospital or school. I never see you get on the actions of the insurgents at all when things like this happen. But you would be up in arms if we did something like this.

[edit on 11/21/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The military does it's best ti minimize the damages death and injuries of not only the civilians and friendly forces, The military also tries to minimize the deaths and damage to the opposing forces.

Does it Really?

I kind of Doubt that - Big Time!

Is this Why the US does not count the Dead Iraqi Civilians?

And the saying that the Military also tries to minimiye the death to the opposing forces is simply silly. I am sure that "Shock and Awe" Tactics REALLY represent what you said...




posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   


This is my beef with your statement there. It is the insurgents who are not playing by ther rules when they launch an offensive attack on the coalition troops from within an area that has civilian occupants in it, then get on the insurgents for putting the civilians in danger. You cant expect troops to not return fire, unless they are in a mosque, hospital or school. I never see you get on the actions of the insurgents at all when things like this happen. But you would be up in arms if we did something like this.


Souljia, you didnt answer my question, and I would appreciate your answer to that.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris



This is my beef with your statement there. It is the insurgents who are not playing by ther rules when they launch an offensive attack on the coalition troops from within an area that has civilian occupants in it, then get on the insurgents for putting the civilians in danger. You cant expect troops to not return fire, unless they are in a mosque, hospital or school. I never see you get on the actions of the insurgents at all when things like this happen. But you would be up in arms if we did something like this.


Souljia, you didnt answer my question, and I would appreciate your answer to that.

Nobody plays by the Rules if you did not Notice.

The US forces use Weapons Banned by International Conventions, like WP, DU, Napalm, Cluster bombs...

The US forces are breaking International Laws and Conventions by detaining Terrorism SUSPECTS in Hidden Camps.

The US Starte this war, by the False Evidence about WMDs, Nuclear Weapons and Al-Qaeda Links.

WHAT is LEGAL about this WAR at all?!?!

When you have a Ugly Occupation, do not Expect a Beautiful Resistance...



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Damn that was fast, thanks for the quick reply Souljah, haha I spelled it right this time
. But anyhow, can I have a link to the conventions you speak of and to one that says the US signed the convention itself. If you look through the other threads pretaining to the use of WP, the US did not sign it and therefore is not obliged to follow it. Thats fair, if they signed it I would have to agree with you there. And to correct you, cluster munitions are not banned by any international treaty, and neither is napalm(for use against military targets only). DU is banned but could not find a link to see if the US is a part of it, feel free to help me out there if you can find one.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

you are speaking of cluster munitions used to deploy mines, those are banned.

And dont change the subject please, this thread is not about the legality of the iraq war, the detaining of suspected terrorists, or anything related. Remember you started the thread, so lets stick to the topic. Well off to work, look forward to your next post.

[edit on 11/21/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
When you have a Ugly Occupation, do not Expect a Beautiful Resistance...


Beautiful resistance of wedding parties getting bombed?

I don't find anything about that beautiful.


Maybe you should re-evaluate what you consider beautiful.

[edit on 22-11-2005 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Beautiful resistance of wedding parties getting bombed?

I don't find anything about that beautiful.


Maybe you should re-evaluate what you consider beautiful.

If you are talking about Jordam Bombings, I am pretty sure that it was a Work of Isreali's Mossad, and not any Al-Qaeda or Zarqawi for that matter.

And you wanna talk about Weddings being turned into Funerals?

US Bombs Afganistan Wedding

USA Bombs Afganistan Wedding Party

Sure...



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Hey wheres my answer?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
why do you keep switching the topic on your thread, this does not only apply to you, everyone keeps changing the topic, lets stay on it people.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Well its pretty easy to lie about whats going on in Iraq for them, they murder journalists who dont work for the US, why do you think you only see Iraq footage on TV when US troops are in the middle of a safe city or the desert in the middle of the night... USA doesnt want you to see the pain and destruction it is commiting, they dont want you to see the Iraqi people as people, but animals... That way its easier to cowardly bomb the # out of these freedom fighters, it makes me laugh when you here these USA inf talking like there all mighty and crap, they are true cowards in its truest sense.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Those are some hefty allegations there Hidden. I mean the journalist thing in the hotel was an accident. Ive never been told to think of Iraqis as animals, and Ive never heard anyone here say the see them that way or believe they are. Freedom Figters dont kill civilians, but then again the old saying goes "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." Which truly does apply to Iraq but cmon, can we get back to the topic please, no one has answerd my response above. I'm no coward either, and thats a rough generalization to make about a group of people. Think about it and change that hostile tone, it doesnt make the situation any better.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The western media downplaying the supposed warcrimes of the American, and British military forces in Iraq (puhleeze!). There is a real
selective viewing of the western media coverage of the Iraqi war going on
here on the part of some here. The coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison incident (such a mild word for such a distastful event), that was certainly
downplayed by the evil government controlled western media (sarcasm, in case you missed it).
I do not pretend to be unbiased in my thoughts on the war in Iraq, I have, and will continue to; support it. Generally, I have little but contempt
for the so called unbiased media, so it pains me to defend them at all, to say that the fourth estate is in collusion with the DOD, and their counterparts in the British military, to cover up any supposed warcrimes is straining the bounds of reality, much less credibility.
Having said this I will close by saying, I joined this site today and look forward to following this topic, and many others, in the future. Peace.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Damn that was fast, thanks for the quick reply Souljah, haha I spelled it right this time
. But anyhow, can I have a link to the conventions you speak of and to one that says the US signed the convention itself. If you look through the other threads pretaining to the use of WP, the US did not sign it and therefore is not obliged to follow it. Thats fair, if they signed it I would have to agree with you there. And to correct you, cluster munitions are not banned by any international treaty, and neither is napalm(for use against military targets only). DU is banned but could not find a link to see if the US is a part of it, feel free to help me out there if you can find one.

Isn't it CONVENIENT that the US can ignore some Laws and Conventions and simply not sign them, just because they have huge ammounts of the Ammunition forbidden by the Convention? Hmmmm... Again it comes to the "We can and you CAN NOT!" situation, which was shown very vividly in the Detention Camps, where the CIA can break international laws, but others can't. The CIA is therefore by the Definitions, a TERRORIST organisation and is using tactics such as Kidnap, Torture, Assassination as Tools.

But this is not the Topic of this Thread.

It was proven that the US and UK mainstream Media tend to ignore some news and report as they wish, in order to keep the Lid on the War on Terror and to keep people convinced that it is OKEY to break laws and conventions in order to pursue the terrorists, which are the "scourge of the 21st century", when in fact it is them who created them in the first place and it is them who are using them to raise the levels of Fear among the world population, so that they can find approval among them for the Western presence in the Middle East, saying: "We must FIGHT here in order to prevent these Islamic Radicls from Entering the Civlized West".



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Once again, can I see some links to what you speak of. Why would the media chose not to show any kind of illeagal weapons use by the US & UK. I mean look at the Abu Gharib and Koran incidents. Those were played so hard by the Western media its unreal. So based on that observation I have to disagree there. If you bring me the evidence that proves what you say is true, I will change my position no questions asked.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Once again, can I see some links to what you speak of. Why would the media chose not to show any kind of illeagal weapons use by the US & UK. I mean look at the Abu Gharib and Koran incidents. Those were played so hard by the Western media its unreal. So based on that observation I have to disagree there. If you bring me the evidence that proves what you say is true, I will change my position no questions asked.

About DU Weapons:

In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. The Subcommission adopted resolutions which include depleted uranium weaponry amongst "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, ... incompatible with international humanitarian or human rights law." (Secretary General's Report, 24 June 1997, E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1997/27)
A UN report of 2002 states that DU weapons also potentially breach each of the following laws: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in or after armed conflicts.

en.wikipedia.org...


White phosphorus. A conventional or a chemical weapon?

Battlefield concentrations of white phosphorus gas are generally considered harmless: there are no documented cases of white phosophorus gases resulting in fatalities. However, its use as an incendiary is under question. The United States reportedly ordered civilians to evacuate areas wherein white phosphorus was going to be used.
But claims that U.S. use of white phosphorus--or 'Whiskey Pete', as it is called by the military--contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, are based on its prohibition of any "toxic chemical" weapons which cause "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes." The fact that direct exposure to white phosphorus produces precisely such effects on humans has been substantiated by numerous sources, both medical and military. The Iraqi government will investigate the American use of white phosphorus munitions during the battle of Fallujah. The inquiry will try to determine whether US forces committed war crimes according to international weapons treaties

en.wikinews.org...

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III), which the USA is not a signatory to, disallows the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or air attacks against troops stationed in a civilian population center, but does not outlaw its battlefield use. General George Casey's 8 November 2004 briefing estimated the number of civilians still in Fallujah as between 20,000 and 100,000 civilians.
en.wikinews.org...

Incendiary weapons: The big white lie


About Trade of Chemical&Biological Agents with Iraq:

Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development. Other countries, including France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, supplied Iraq at this time.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

as posted by Souljah
About Trade of Chemical&Biological Agents with Iraq


I guess you missed this mention?
Maybe wiki missed this mention, as well?
Dutchman helped Saddam genocide’

Wiki is an alright source, but certainly not one that should be used to prove political points, such as this one, Souljah.

Again, as for DU and white phosphorus uses, the US is not signatory or restrained from using either.







seekerof

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I guess you missed this mention?
Maybe wiki missed this mention, as well?
Dutchman helped Saddam genocide’

Wiki is an alright source, but certainly not one that should be used to prove political points, such as this one, Souljah.

Again, as for DU and white phosphorus uses, the US is not signatory or restrained from using either.

I mentioned that USA, Russa, France, Japan and Other countries were involved in trade of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. Much more technology received Iraq from the West including mainframe computers, chemicals, helicopters. How ironic that on the Day that Donald Rumsfeld arrived to meet Saddam on 24 March 1984 / the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. And at that time, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." I did not see Dutch Invading Iraq - I saw American Goverment doing that.

Here is some "Night Reading" for You:
Foreign Suppliers to Iraq's Biological Weapons Program
The following is a representative list of biologicals sold to Iraq by the United States prior to the Gulf War.
A full list of those companies and their involvements in Iraq
US Armed Iraq Through BNL
Western Suppliers of Unconventional Weapons and Technologies to Iraq and Libya: Special Report by Simon Wiesenthal Center
US-Iraq Relations Timeline
Made in America: It's no accident that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - U.S. corporations helped supply them





top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join