|
Please tell me we didn't do that in Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
We didn't really do this, did we? Please for 's sake tell me we didn't:
| quote: |
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city [...]
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle325560.ece |
Once again, we hear this from the European newspapers, but utter silence over here. I really do hope this is rumor and hearsay. Here's a video for the evidence, however:
http://www.rainews24.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784
Now this is unconfirmed, but follow me here for a moment - the neocons and Bush apologists went on and on and ing on ad nauseum about Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people, right?
So if this turns out to be true, what exactly is the moral ground that we have left to stand on over there? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
I'm inclined to believe this.
Even though the Independent is a left-leaning daily, not once in the 5 years of reading it online have I ever read a story that was factually false, everything was eventually corroborated.
So assuming it's true, it's a horrific indictment of US foreign policy and Americans as a whole. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
We didn't really do this, did we? Please for 's sake tell me we didn't:
Once again, we hear this from the European newspapers, but utter silence over here. I really do hope this is rumor and hearsay. Here's a video for the evidence, however:
http://www.rainews24.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784
Now this is unconfirmed, but follow me here for a moment - the neocons and Bush apologists went on and on and ing on ad nauseum about Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people, right?
So if this turns out to be true, what exactly is the moral ground that we have left to stand on over there? |
I'm going to go ahead and call bull until I see something other than rumors and heresay. After all, it was "shock and awe", not "shock and Ow".
But seriously, I just watched the video and I can't say that it has any credibility whatsoever. You have some young dude with the caption "ex-marine" under it (and he sure didn't look or act like any sort of marine based on personal experience) saying, "yes. It happened". I guess that's all the proof we'd need. I'd bet this is just more propoganda manufactured to make Amerikkka look like satan-spawn. Yawn.
Your foil hat is taking you down some odd rabbit holes lately. This would need a lot more evidence before it gains any credibility. And if it had happened, I would've expected some media outrage a long time ago. Gotta love publishing bull on the Internets.
BUT: I am almost positive that Randy "I wear a perma-penis-on-my-head" Rhodes will be talking about this like scripture from the bible on my ride home today. Her listeners will be eating it right out of her hand. Oh, IT HAPPENED. This is how all Republicans behave.:rolleyes: ing ****. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
While I don't really dispute the act, I dispute exactly "what" was being sprayed.
For all we really know it could have been something as benign as black phosphorus to help digital imaging tracking of insurgents.
However the implication of white phosphorus is more sensational I have to admit...
I really can't see the U.S. wanting to put themselves in that precarious position after all the other 'scadals' regarding Iraq; highly hypocritical indeed... |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And if it had happened, I would've expected some media outrage a long time ago.
|
How many times do I have to say this: The American press does NOT report a whole range of events and topics that are covered in the foreign press. American citizens are usually the last ones to learn about something that their own country did.
Look at the recent scandals like the Downing Memo or the photos-for-porn scandal. Both of these emerged from the British or European press. Then, after some embarassment, the American "sources" reluctantly confirmed the above events and some American papers reported them. "Some" being the operative word.
Jefferson Morley, the international affairs correspondent at Washington Post, himself said something to this effect: "If you're an American citizen and you're interested in what your country is doing overseas, you owe it to yourself to read foreign news sites, and completely forget about the common American news outlets."
I will also say this: The foreign press gives a much more honest and uncensored view of all events, because the rest of the world is not as uptight and puritanical as America (surprise) and you'll see a lot of stuff hidden from you in America. For example, when covering the French rioting, all the European papers ran the photograph with the graffiti "NIQUE LA POLICE" ("F*CK THE POLICE"), with subtitles, while no American news outlet ran this photo. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
How many times do I have to say this: The American press does NOT report a whole range of events and topics that are covered in the foreign press. American citizens are usually the last ones to learn about something that their own country did.
Look at the recent scandals like the Downing Memo or the photos-for-porn scandal. Both of these emerged from the British or European press. Then, after some embarassment, the American "sources" reluctantly confirmed the above events and some American papers reported them. "Some" being the operative word.
Jefferson Morley, the international affairs correspondent at Washington Post, himself said something to this effect: "If you're an American citizen and you're interested in what your country is doing overseas, you owe it to yourself to read foreign news sites, and completely forget about the common American news outlets."
I will also say this: The foreign press gives a much more honest and uncensored view of all events, because the rest of the world is not as uptight and puritanical as America (surprise) and you'll see a lot of stuff hidden from you in America. For example, when covering the French rioting, all the European papers ran the photograph with the graffiti "NIQUE LA POLICE" ("F*CK THE POLICE"), with subtitles, while no American news outlet ran this photo. |
Ok, well show me some real proof other than some dude on a web video saying "it happened".
Did you know that it just rained spaghetti and meatballs on my office? Dude, it sooo happened. People are running around outside with red sauce all over their clothes. It looks like blood, but it's just Ragu.
Edit: I never specifically said "the American media". I just said the media. Obviously everyone in here has Internet access and can find multiple other sources for whatever news they want to believe. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Ok, well show me some real proof other than some dude on a web video saying "it happened".
Did you know that it just rained spaghetti and meatballs on my office? Dude, it sooo happened. People are running around outside with red sauce all over their clothes. It looks like blood, but it's just Ragu. |
Did anyone ever read "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" when they were a kid? I ing loved that book!
I don't get Rhodes anymore on Sirius. Lemme know if she yells this one out :D. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Well technically white phosphorous is an incindiary as opposed to a chemical weapon and its use against enemy soldiers is not banned. Its use against civilians is banned, however, the US is not a signatory to that provision of the geneva conventions fwiw. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Did anyone ever read "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" when they were a kid? I ing loved that book!
I don't get Rhodes anymore on Sirius. Lemme know if she yells this one out :D. |
I know the book all too well. I was actually trying to refresh a few other friends' memories not too long ago with a reference to that book. Wasn't it a nasty day when it rained pea soup or something like that?
Anyhoo--I ended up listening to ESPN on the way home. Too funny listening to TO apologize for being an arrogant superstar.
Why is she not on Sirius anymore? Is Stern too big? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
I have seen pictures of what the stuff did to the Iraqi people. If I can find the site that hosted it I will post it here. But be warned those that do find the gallery it is not a pleasant sight to see.
They were really gory pictures of imolated victims. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| By they way, not to be an insensitive jackass, but do you know what else burns bodies badly? Explosions, fire and extreme heat, often seen in a warzone. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
I have seen pictures of what the stuff did to the Iraqi people. If I can find the site that hosted it I will post it here. But be warned those that do find the gallery it is not a pleasant sight to see.
They were really gory pictures of imolated victims. |
I know there were a lot of pictures from Gulf War I that were pretty gory. I don't remember the specific name, but it's "something" Mile. A lot of charred bodies and vehicles. War is hell. |
|
|
|
|
