Shake And Bake

[poncho]

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 15, 2005
The Guardian

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

<snip>

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

SOURCE

 

[prophecynut]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327094.ece

http://rense.com/general68/itreatedpeople.htm


Hab. 2:17

".....For you have shed man's blood; you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them."

 

[LadyEagle]

The civilian population was evacuated from Fallujah before we attacked. If the terrorists fried, so be it.

 

[guitarpreacher]

By your definition of chemical weapon, each time a police officer maces a drunk, he's guilty of using chemical weapons.

Here's a wild thought for you - If the culture of death is wiped out and innocent lives are saved, especially American lives on American soil, I do not care what we use on them. I'm for whatever it takes to get the job done. If Napalm and Phosphorus are what it takes to win the war on terror, then let's send them some more.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. The only good terrorist is a dead one, and it matters not, to me, how he gits dead.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by poncho:
Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?

OK. I'll speak out:

DROP MORE!

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Yup. The only good terrorist is a dead one, and it matters not, to me, how he gits dead.

Amen brother Curtis.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Since this tactic is acceptable for us to use, would accept it as an acceptable weapon to be used by the bad guys?

If we had found stockpiles of white phosphorus in Iraq, would that have been considered a chemical weapon?

 

[guitarpreacher]

Dude, there are no acceptable weapons for our enemies to use on us. Why some people think that war should be fair and all sides balanced is beyond me.

Do you really for a minute think that if the terrorist we are fighting against signed any agreement limiting what they could use against us, that they would think twice about breaking it?

And no, if we found WP in Iraq, it would not be considered a chemical weapon.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You mean to say that if Saddam Hussein had used WP against us we would not have condemned it as a chemical attack?

Somehow I doubt that.

If this is no problem, why was it denied until evidence came out.

Oh yes, faulty information is always an acceptable reason.

 

[Bunyon]

C4K, the answer is no. I am NBC (neclear, biological, and chemical) trained by the us Army and WP and Napalm are not considered chemical weapons no matter who uses them. I have stated this several times, but some folks (I am not talking about you) do not care how authoritative the answer is, they just want to push the propaganda. Sure it is a chemical, but if you want to paly it that way, the flame throwers of ww2 are chemical weapons.

Chemical warfare is defined. It is nerve gas, blister agent, mustard gas, and other such exotic things. We have never used these thing in combat. Chemical warfare has a certain conotation to it. The injustice of accusing our troops of chemical warfare is like this. If you got a speeding ticket, I could accuse you of being a lawbreaker in front of your congregation, because technically speaking your would be. But I would never accuse you of that because we don't use the term lawbreaker and all it communicates for people who get simple speeding tickets. Chemical warfare has a certain conotation that we should not put on troops using WP and Napalm. It is just that simple. But some folks want to use that brush to paint our troops and they don't care what color the paint is just so long as it is ugley.

No weapon is acceptable for use by the enemy. We want to take all there weapons and win the war, but know we would not call napalm and Wp chemical weapons. If you want to see chemical weapons effects, look at the pics of Sadam's attack on the Kurds. Hudreds of bodies laying dead right where they were standing and not a mark on them. No burns no nothing.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thank you for the authoritative answer.

I suspect though that many here would have made the chemical connection if the situation were reversed.

My major problem is the denial until proof was forthcoming. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, why hide it.

 

[guitarpreacher]

Just once I'd like to see something like this come from a source other than an over the top anti American publication. I'd even settle for the New York Times. You'd think, as anti war/anti bush the Times is, they would have picked up on this if there was an once of credibility to it.

 

[Bunyon]

C4K, I suspect it is so that Italy and other countries wont do exacly what has been done. Try to accuse our troops of chemical warfare. And what is the difference if you are split in half by a 500 pound smart bomb or incenerated in a napalm fireball. As far as I know, there have never been any restrictions placed on the use of WP and Napalm by the Geneva Convention or any other treaty. But in the end, a company of soldiers are going to do whatever it takes to survive when under attack. They would even use chemical weapons, but they can't because they don't have access to them.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by guitarpreacher:
Just once I'd like to see something like this come from a source other than an over the top anti American publication. I'd even settle for the New York Times. You'd think, as anti war/anti bush the Times is, they would have picked up on this if there was an once of credibility to it.

Are you saying you don't even believe this happened?

Here is a Forbes report

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/11/16/afx2341690.html

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
C4K, I suspect it is so that Italy and other countries wont do exacly what has been done. Try to accuse our troops of chemical warfare. And what is the difference if you are split in half by a 500 pound smart bomb or incenerated in a napalm fireball. As far as I know, there have never been any restrictions placed on the use of WP and Napalm by the Geneva Convention or any other treaty. But in the end, a company of soldiers are going to do whatever it takes to survive when under attack. They would even use chemical weapons, but they can't because they don't have access to them.

In this day and age lying WILL be found out. It would have looked MUCH better from day one of they had said, "Yes, we used white phosphorus" and then gone on to explain it the way you did above.

This regular pattern of deny then backtrack is destroying our credibility abroad.

 

[guitarpreacher]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by guitarpreacher:
Just once I'd like to see something like this come from a source other than an over the top anti American publication. I'd even settle for the New York Times. You'd think, as anti war/anti bush the Times is, they would have picked up on this if there was an once of credibility to it.

Are you saying you don't even believe this happened?

Here is a Forbes report

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/11/16/afx2341690.html </font>[/QUOTE]Are you telling me you don't see any difference in the Forbes article "U.S. defends use of white Phosphorus" and the U.K. article "U.S. uses chemical weapons and lies about it" ? Give me a break!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The fact is that a lie was told. I better understand the use of WP after Bunyuns's explanation, but the US officials asked for this when they lied the first time. It would not have caused near the upset if they had fessed up and explained themselves the first time.

 

[Bunyon]

They are saying they did not lie, but had incomplete info. I have now reason to doubt them. But tactical information about troop strength, weapons and capabilities is often hidden or diguised. I don't know if that was the case here, but the Idea that our troops and tatics are an open book is a modern lunacy. If I was the camander and I were using permited weapons that were controversial, I would not tell any one anything they did not need to know.
And if misleading would help my combat situation and diprive the enemy, I would do that too, as long as it was not illegal or misleading to my higher ups and government.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The problem is that the truth is going to come out. We need all the support we can get on this at home and abroad.

There is already dwindling support for the war anyway, this will do more to harm the cause.

If some NBC expert had come on at the very first, said "yes, we used it, here's what it is and why we used it," it would have done more good than harm, and squashed these world-wide criticisms.