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.

 

NEWS: US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by jsobecky
So is a rusty knife applied along the Adam's apple, while videotaping.
Did you complain about that?


If you think about it, the rusty knife to the throat was more humane in one REAL LARGE aspect, that the captors GAVE opportunity for those in captivity to survive...the US and the coalition of the killing decided that it wasnt in their best interest. At least those at the knife point were GIVEN the chance to survive; by showering a civilian population with WP, they were given NO chance...not at any time do i remember the coalition getting on a bullhorn and stating "Ok, all you bad bad insurgents have a choice here, either come out, live and let the civilians around you live, OR we will shower you AND the civilians with WP and ensure that none of you leave!" .... im sure had that option been given, then maybe the comparison could be on par.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I mentioned the rusty knife. Think Peter Berg. Think Daniel Pearl. Think of that poor Japanese fellow - sorry, I can't remember his name.

Now please explain how they had a chance to survive, being blindfolded, hands tied behind their back, on their knees, about to be be-headed?

And remember, the civilians had plenty of warning about the impending attack on Fallujah. Don't you remember how some people decried the ID's that were given to the civilians as some kind of conspiracy? So that point you tried to make doesn't wash, either.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Jakomo

US backed sanctions killed upwards of half a million Iraqi children. By restricting meds and food.

Read something some time.

jako

Wrong. It was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, which made them binding on all U.N. members.

Even bin Laden lashed out at the U.N. over the sanctions.

Nice move, trying to make it sound like it was all the USA.




He said US Backed Sanctions, not US imposed sanctions



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrMedic
All you lefitie socialists out there would find anything to complain about the Bush administration. If they solved world hunger or declared a cure for AIDS or cancer you would find some way to blame Bush or find some problem with them. Nobody here has yet posted a quote where they clearly lied about this weapon's use. This is alot of speculation and little on unequivocal fact. No longer do journalists have to back up their claims, they throw something out there and see if anybody will actually stand up and disprove what they hear from the left wing media spin machine. Need I remind you of the Dan Rather situation. NOONE has come out with undisputable proof the administration has done anything wrong. War is terrible but let's put some of the responsibilty on the right people, the terrorists. You guys care more about protecting them then stopping them from killing and maiming the innocent people they attack. We don't hi-jack civilian aircraft and fly them into civilian buildings. We have given the terrorists fair warning to cease their violent and murderous behavior, or be met with the most devasting military machine in the world. They don't understand diplomacy. Look at the French. They want to "reach out" to the radical muslims and help them. And look what happened. Violent murderous attacks. The terrorists need to be dealt with in a overwhelming show of force for our resolve to be respected. With whatever means necessary. If that means using white phosphorus so be it. When Eisenhower was asked how many Atomic Bombs he would order dropped on Japan after they annihalated Nagasaki he said "...as many as it takes!"
We will stop as soon as they surrender and get in line!


Why is it that always the Righty radicals seem to confuse the WAR on Terror with the Iraqi War....last i checked, they were 2 independent topics...Is that what were doing in Iraq these days? Fighting the War on Terror?? Ok, who forgot to send me that damn memo



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   


He said US Backed Sanctions, not US imposed sanctions


Pretty much everyone backed them innitially, and one would have to question the motives of those who stopped...

At the same time, what alternative did America have with Iraq? It's either you sanction a country or you attack them militarily. Saddam wasn't going to give up his weapons voluntarily. We weren't allowed to invade. What should we have done?



Why is it that always the Righty radicals seem to confuse the WAR on Terror with the Iraqi War....last i checked, they were 2 independent topics...Is that what were doing in Iraq these days? Fighting the War on Terror?? Ok, who forgot to send me that damn memo


Why do those lefty radicals always have to confuse the reasons for going to war, with how we fight it once we start? This entire topic is more about peoples political agendas, not the reality of the situation in Iraq or war in general...

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by jsobecky
So is a rusty knife applied along the Adam's apple, while videotaping.
Did you complain about that?


If you think about it, the rusty knife to the throat was more humane in one REAL LARGE aspect, that the captors GAVE opportunity for those in captivity to survive...the US and the coalition of the killing decided that it wasnt in their best interest. At least those at the knife point were GIVEN the chance to survive; by showering a civilian population with WP, they were given NO chance...not at any time do i remember the coalition getting on a bullhorn and stating "Ok, all you bad bad insurgents have a choice here, either come out, live and let the civilians around you live, OR we will shower you AND the civilians with WP and ensure that none of you leave!" .... im sure had that option been given, then maybe the comparison could be on par.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I mentioned the rusty knife. Think Peter Berg. Think Daniel Pearl. Think of that poor Japanese fellow - sorry, I can't remember his name.

Now please explain how they had a chance to survive, being blindfolded, hands tied behind their back, on their knees, about to be be-headed?

And remember, the civilians had plenty of warning about the impending attack on Fallujah. Don't you remember how some people decried the ID's that were given to the civilians as some kind of conspiracy? So that point you tried to make doesn't wash, either.


Easy to explain how they had a chance to survive...by meeting the captors demands....pulling the troops away. We dont need to talk about the logistics of why doing that would be a bad OR good idea...but it IS the answer



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


He said US Backed Sanctions, not US imposed sanctions


Pretty much everyone backed them innitially, and one would have to question the motives of those who stopped...

At the same time, what alternative did America have with Iraq? It's either you sanction a country or you attack them militarily. Saddam wasn't going to give up his weapons voluntarily. We weren't allowed to invade. What should we have done?



Why is it that always the Righty radicals seem to confuse the WAR on Terror with the Iraqi War....last i checked, they were 2 independent topics...Is that what were doing in Iraq these days? Fighting the War on Terror?? Ok, who forgot to send me that damn memo


Why do those lefty radicals always have to confuse the reasons for going to war, with how we fight it once we start? This entire topic is more about peoples political agendas, not the reality of the situation in Iraq or war in general...

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]


I think you missed the humor there, that was exactly my point without saying as much...this isnt about a political agenda, which is exactly why i posted that lol... It about the Morality of using WP on the civilians in Iraq


And btw, im not saying anything at all about how it should be fought once we are in there, nor has anyone in this thread who is against the use of WP's on civilians... its not how the war should be fought, but definitively how it SHOULDNT be fought once we are there... now, if you think that there is something wrong with pointing out what SHOULDNT be done in times of war, then I would also have to imagine that you would have supported the holocaust during WWII right?? I mean Dont question it once its happening right? Are you kidding me??

[edit on 16-11-2005 by alphabetaone]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
It was never used on civilians in Iraq. What more could America have done for the civilians in Fallujah short of not attacking at all? I don't see how anyone besides those who were opposed to the war in the first place could make such an argument, as you are basically just saying don't fight in the first place...



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   


What more could America have done for the civilians in Fallujah short of not attacking at all?

That is an easy question to answer!
What more could America do...... All American soldiers as well as all American civilians worldwide to drop dead. That seems to be the only thing that the extremists are willing to have as an end result.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012



What more could America have done for the civilians in Fallujah short of not attacking at all?

That is an easy question to answer!
What more could America do...... All American soldiers as well as all American civilians worldwide to drop dead. That seems to be the only thing that the extremists are willing to have as an end result.


The extremists?? Yes, youre absolutely right, the extremists im sure would want nothing less....however, im sure a vast majority of the babies that were affected by that, were not quite extremists yet...but thats just me talking



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It was never used on civilians in Iraq. What more could America have done for the civilians in Fallujah short of not attacking at all? I don't see how anyone besides those who were opposed to the war in the first place could make such an argument, as you are basically just saying don't fight in the first place...

The convention or whatever it's called controlling the use of WP says that it should not be used to target civilians (I didn't know you were allowed to target civilians anyway, but whatev), or be used in areas high in civilian populations. So while civilians weren't the target, they probably were affected. However, in the case of Fallujah, there really wasn't much more that could be done to get civilians out of Fallujah. And given the amount of combat in the city, I really doubt WP turned out to be much more deadly (in terms of civilians affected) than guns, tanks, and missiles.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

He said US Backed Sanctions, not US imposed sanctions

Yes, I'm aware of what he said. And to someone speed reading past that, or someone not familiar with what really happened, it sounds like it's the big bad USA all over again. It's the kind of sentiment that you see on anti-US protestors' placards and signs. It breeds division and mis-placed anger. All due to applying a very thin layer of truth to the discussion.

In other words, he could as easily have said "Canada Backed Sanctions" and it would have been THE TRUTH. Savvy?





posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Why is it that always the Righty radicals seem to confuse the WAR on Terror with the Iraqi War....last i checked, they were 2 independent topics...Is that what were doing in Iraq these days? Fighting the War on Terror?? Ok, who forgot to send me that damn memo


Whoa! Alphabetaone. Easy there cowboy. Typical leftie reply. Instead of actually debating the facts...you make snide personal jabs. I didn't realize these two things were separate endeavors. Aren't we fighting terrorists in Iraq? I guess I need to get on the same memo system as you...


[edit on 11/16/2005 by MrMedic]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   


The extremists?? Yes, youre absolutely right, the extremists im sure would want nothing less....however, im sure a vast majority of the babies that were affected by that, were not quite extremists yet...but thats just me talking


Oh, right...I'm sure there were just thousands of babies left in Fallujah...



The convention or whatever it's called controlling the use of WP says that it should not be used to target civilians (I didn't know you were allowed to target civilians anyway, but whatev), or be used in areas high in civilian populations. So while civilians weren't the target, they probably were affected. However, in the case of Fallujah, there really wasn't much more that could be done to get civilians out of Fallujah. And given the amount of combat in the city, I really doubt WP turned out to be much more deadly (in terms of civilians affected) than guns, tanks, and missiles.


How many civilians could have been affected? The vast majority of them fled the city.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrMedic

Why is it that always the Righty radicals seem to confuse the WAR on Terror with the Iraqi War....last i checked, they were 2 independent topics...Is that what were doing in Iraq these days? Fighting the War on Terror?? Ok, who forgot to send me that damn memo


Whoa! Alphabetaone. Easy there cowboy. Typical leftie reply. Instead of actually debating the facts...you make snide personal jabs. I didn't realize these two things were separate endeavors. Aren't we fighting terrorists in Iraq? I guess I need to get on the same memo system as you...


[edit on 11/16/2005 by MrMedic]


It being made as humor notwithstanding, yes it was a snide remark, but definitely not personal lol
I think though, Medic, that view is somewhat twisted wouldnt you say? Of course there are terrorists there, just like there are US, UK, and Australian born terrorists as well..so, if we happen to run across one during the course of the battle there, then yes, i imagine at that POINT we're fighting terrorists there...but, to substantiate the War in Iraq by claiming that our troops are there fighting THE war on terror is false propaganda, and contrary to the original justification for being there at all.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The extremists?? Yes, youre absolutely right, the extremists im sure would want nothing less....however, im sure a vast majority of the babies that were affected by that, were not quite extremists yet...but thats just me talking


Oh, right...I'm sure there were just thousands of babies left in Fallujah...



The convention or whatever it's called controlling the use of WP says that it should not be used to target civilians (I didn't know you were allowed to target civilians anyway, but whatev), or be used in areas high in civilian populations. So while civilians weren't the target, they probably were affected. However, in the case of Fallujah, there really wasn't much more that could be done to get civilians out of Fallujah. And given the amount of combat in the city, I really doubt WP turned out to be much more deadly (in terms of civilians affected) than guns, tanks, and missiles.


How many civilians could have been affected? The vast majority of them fled the city.


But, its fair to say, isnt it, that neither I nor you were or are there, so how many and to what degree any civilians were left in fallujah is arguable...to which we may never know the reality of it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

But, its fair to say, isnt it, that neither I nor you were or are there, so how many and to what degree any civilians were left in fallujah is arguable...to which we may never know the reality of it.


I trust the testimony of those soldiers, and yes, even most of the reporters who were in Fallujah. I don't have to see it with my own eyes. Hundreds of thousands of people were reported to have left the city. It was described as pretty much abandoned after the fighting started.

At the same time, when fighting a war, what America did was to the extreme. What we did was so nice it was almost foolish. We gave the enemy weeks to prepare for us to enter that city, or even flee while we let those civilians out. We never intentionally targeted civilians. We gave them all the warning necessary.

Even if some civilians were harmed by it, it could not be called intentional, and no one could say that America didn't take every action to get those civilians out of the city.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

I think though, Medic, that view is somewhat twisted wouldnt you say? Of course there are terrorists there, just like there are US, UK, and Australian born terrorists as well...


We don't have people blowing themselves up in crowded streets or savagely choppin' peoples' heads off EVERY day in those country! Iraq is the epicenter of the War on Terror.

If you haven't already you have to read MajorCee's thread..."Iraq, stroke of military genius." Very interesting topic. Puts alot of things in perspective.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11/16/2005 by MrMedic]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrMedic

Iraq is the epicenter of the War on Terror.


[edit on 11/16/2005 by MrMedic]


I think you may have overlooked something in your argument. Iraq is the epicenter of the War on Terror because we (the U.S.) made it that...not because there was any evidence of same.

And what does this have to do with raining fire on innocent civilians?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Thanks for that post Val,

I have been trying to stay away from the issue because we Americans do not do things like this to Innocent people.

I want to believe just that, but more and more evidence of the damage cause by the substance used in Fallujah is becoming overwhelming, and this is going to enrage more and more the same people that US is trying to turn to our side.

I don't get it, why doing something like this knowing very well that news like this is just going to make more enemies than allies.

Is that the whole purpose of the war on terror?

Or just a reason to justify it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape

- White phosporous is an chemical..a debate that is it a chemical weapon or not, is useless because people are referring to neurotoxins.They kill you throught inhaling and are banned. Wasn´t that kind of weapons the point usa went to iraq anyway?Well anyway.
This thing kills when inhaled, with or without gas mask/protective clothing. Ok so it kills as neurotoxins..Exception here is that you can see the area its covering ,because it´s also an incendiary material which provides very thick very lethal smoke (napalm smoke is comparable with fumes from benzin flames ).


If it kills by inhaling maybe you can explain quotes from troops saying they have been in the smoke from WP and it only makes you cough. Or explain why they would use it as a smoke screen, that our troops would probably be going right through, but they don't wear MOPP gear when they do? WP does NOT kill by inhaling. It kills by BURNING and causing massive burn damage to the body. WP is NOT the same as napalm, which you seem to equate it with. They are COMPLETELY different substances.

[edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join