US Lied to Britain over Use of Napalm in Iraq War [Archive]

demon

17th June 2005, 04:05 PM

I`ve been following this story for a long time, including the part played by the sophist Ann Clywd`s as a deceitful propagandist for Tony Blair. She`s been too busy chasing around after the myths of Saddam`s "shredder machines".
The BBC too have ignored this story for months.

May 02, 2005
Ann Clwyd rebuts napalm charges in letter to the Guardian today

quote:
Haifa Zangana (Comment, April 22) accuses the multinational forces in Iraq of using a "modern form of napalm" against the people of Falluja, "a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy". In fact I raised the allegations with Foreign Office minister Elizabeth Symons, who told me in her February reply that "the reports are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time." It's a pity Zangana ignores those Iraqis working with great courage to rebuild the country after the horrors of Saddam.

Ann Clwyd
Prime minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lying shitweasels, the lot of them. Note the date.
Well, here's the Independent's Andrew Buncombe, August 10, 2003...

""We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11.

""Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.""
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

Mephisto

17th June 2005, 04:43 PM

Thanks for the link, demon.

I think it's amusing that this "do as I say, not as I do" administration in the U.S. is using "promoting Democracy" as an excuse to remain in Iraq.

I found this portion of the link you provided particularly interesting (especially since many these days don't know what napalm is).

_______

"A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war. "
________

Of course, we can quote the UN security regulations when it comes to Saddam, but we certainly can't take the "high ground" when it comes to some things (such as NOT signing certain treaties).

WildCat

17th June 2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Thanks for the link, demon.

I think it's amusing that this "do as I say, not as I do" administration in the U.S. is using "promoting Democracy" as an excuse to remain in Iraq.

I found this portion of the link you provided particularly interesting (especially since many these days don't know what napalm is).

_______

"A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war. "
________

Of course, we can quote the UN security regulations when it comes to Saddam, but we certainly can't take the "high ground" when it comes to some things (such as NOT signing certain treaties).
What "civilian targets"? For what purpose? Or maybe my idea of "target" is different than yours.

CapelDodger

17th June 2005, 04:58 PM

When the UK was at war with Argentina in 1982, the gutter Sun ran a headline "Argie Terror Weapons Found", referring to napalm allegedly found at Goose Green. Funnily enough, they never used that term during the Vietnam War. "Terror Weapons". Ironic, really.

To be fair, though, there was never any claim the IRA were involved. Not even by innuendo.

demon

17th June 2005, 06:20 PM

There are a lot of reports of chemical wepaon use in Fallujah too (as opposed to the obligatory US military denial of such), speaking of which, those who claimed a "victory in Fallujah" have perhaps missed the latest.
Over the last two weeks there has been a string of resistance attacks inside "liberated" Fallujah, killing American troops and the unfortunate friends of the occupiers.
The Americans were able to claim victory in the city late last year only be expeling its 200,000 inhabitants and ruling over a ghost town. But people have started to return and the insurgency has picked up again, since the people are the insurgents.

(Negotiations are being pursued by US Diplomats and militray commanders with insurgents by the way...another case of the "we don`t talk to terrorists apart from the terrorists we talk to" hypocrisy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1503477,00.html

Anyway, I agree...negotiating with terrorists stinks and the insurgents should be ashamed of themselves.)

The only ground the American army controls in Iraq is the one they're standing on. Consumed with hubris, blinded by the insolence of their haughty and unfounded assumptions they have invaded and violated the land of one of the most ferocious people on earth and they will pay the price.

The French learnt their lessons in Algeria and remembered, the Americans learnt theirs in Vietnam and forgot, they will be cured of their amnesia, in Iraq.

Rob Lister

17th June 2005, 06:33 PM

At the risk of seeming out of touch, and not really willing to pollute my mind with truthout.org, can someone explain to me the problem with using Napalm? It's really quite good stuff if used correctly. It can clear whole lines of enemy troops in one fell swoop. In fact, it works much better in 'front' situations than just about any other munition other than a machine gun. Sure, typical bombs blow up, but mostly they just 'blow up'. Napalm can draw a neat and precise line if dropped by an experienced pilot. You can clear an enemy trench, and just the trench, if you drop it perfectly; leaving both sides pretty much unscathed (well, except for the complete O2 depletion . . . only temporary).

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory -- Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now

corplinx

17th June 2005, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by demon
There are a lot of reports of chemical wepaon use in Fallujah too (as opposed to the obligatory US military denial of such), speaking of which, those who claimed a "victory in Fallujah" have perhaps missed the latest.
Over the last two weeks there has been a string of resistance attacks inside "liberated" Fallujah, killing American troops and the unfortunate friends of the occupiers.

Were the chemical weapons delivered by Black UN Helicoptors Mr. Gribble?

Btw, bombings and attacks are also occuring in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. I have no doubt that violence will occur even after we leave Iraq sadly.

demon

18th June 2005, 04:22 AM

Corprolinx:
"Were the chemical weapons delivered by Black UN Helicoptors Mr. Gribble?"

As I said in another post, to many people the Iraqis are always liars when they speak about about atrocities committed by the Coalition. They make stuff up; they're totally unreliable apart from when they're talking about the atrocities committed by Saddam, or framing George Galloway or talking about the existence of WMD...then mysteriously they're 100% reliable and accurate.
Anyone see the propblem with this?

The reports of chemical weapon use in Fallujah come from more reliable witnesses than those jokers who brought you the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman BS, but oh no, people still put their faith in the boys who have watched one too many Rambo films.

On March 3 Aljazeera reported:

"Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."

The doctor reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city."

The residents of the city describe how they had witnessed "melted" bodies. ('US used banned weapons in Fallujah - Health ministry', 3 March, 2005, http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216)

Let`s remember that the US military have already admitted that they have used a more effective form of napalm (Andrew Buncombe, "US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq", The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003).

"We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

Mark Manning, the American documentary film-maker went to Fallujah to deliver medical supplies to the refugees and while he was there he collected 25 hours of videotaped interviews with many eyewitnesses.

"(He)... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."(Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah", Santa Barbara Independent, 17 March, 2005, http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm)

BBC Worldwide Monitoring has also picked up numerous media reports of the use of poisonous gas in Fallujah. For example, this item dated 2 March in the Lexis-Nexis database:

"Text of report by Abd-al-Hamid Abdallah in Baghdad headlined 'Occupation forces use apple-scented poisonous gas against residents of Al-Fallujah' carried on Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah web site on 28 February.

"Sources from Iraq's Association of Muslim Scholars who have recently visited Al-Fallujah say the occupation forces used poisonous gas against the inhabitants of the city in the last couple of days."

Accounts abound of other atrocities committed in that city. Another example...a newspaper interview with two men from Fallujah in the German daily Junge Welt, Week final supplement, Feb 26, 2005:

"I saw in Falluja with own eyes a family that had been shot by U.S. soldiers: The father was in his mid-fifties, his three children between ten and twelve years old. In the refugee camp a teacher told me she had been preparing a meal, when soldiers stormed their dwelling in Falluja. Without preliminary warning they shot her father, her husband and her brother. Then they went right out. From fear the woman remained in the house with the dead bodies. In the evening other soldiers came, who took her and her children and brought them out of the city. Those are only two of many tragedies in Falluja." (International Action Center, "Fallujah was wiped out", www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm)

To imagine that we need to invoke the old black helicopter routine when US marines have already admitted to using napalm shows a deep contempt for Iraqi witness testimony aligned with a complete willingness to accept the word of the US military and Administration in the face of their proven dissembling and exaggeration. Why dismiss it in such a cavalier way?
People said the same things about the reported atrocities committed in Vietnam at the time I guess..lapping up official fiction is a dedicated mission for some people.

zenith-nadir

18th June 2005, 04:39 AM

THREAD TRANSLATION : "Insurgents are victims of atrocities committed by the evil napalm-using Americans and it's lap dog, the semi-evil U.K.... and here's the documentation from Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org to prove it!"

demon

18th June 2005, 05:02 AM

ZN;
"THREAD TRANSLATION : "Insurgents are victims of atrocities committed by the evil napalm-using Americans and it's lap dog, the semi-evil U.K.... and here's the documentation from Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org to prove it!""

Documentation from Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org to? Ok, I see you are loath to call it what it is...eyewitness testimony from Iraqis, not insurgents, about atrocities committed against Iraqis not insurgents ( I know they are one and the same thing to you...Arab=Terrorist so no suprise you compound the two here).

Just can`t believe anything they say that doesn`t support the offical line can we? That`s sad but I guess it will be a cold day in hell before a zionist will even consider that an Arab could tell the truth. Ironic.

If Saddam had levelled Fallujah and created 200,000 refugees in the process it would have been the crime of the century and somehow George Galloway would have been making millions out of it and there would be plenty of "documentation" for that too I suppose along with a chorus of "humanitarians" and a flood of crocodile tears..
Yes, they are all terrorists, who gives a ****?

zenith-nadir

18th June 2005, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by demon
Documentation from Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org? Ok, I see you are loath to call it what it is...eyewitness testimony from Iraqis, not insurgents, about atrocities committed against Iraqis not insurgents ( I know they are one and the same thing to you...Arab=Terrorist so no suprise you compound the two here).Just can`t believe anything they say that doesn`t support the offical line can we? That`s sad but I guess it will be a cold day in hell before a zionist will even consider that an Arab could tell the truth. Ironic.If Saddam had levelled Fallujah and created 200,000 refugees in the process it would have been the crime of the century and somehow George Galloway would have been making millions out of it and there would be plenty of "documentation" for that too I suppose along with a chorus of "humanitarians" and a flood of crocodile tears.Yes, they are all terrorists, who gives a ****? The irony is that you don't realize that soldiers on the ground don't spend time wondering how their actions will be reported by liberal monday-morning quarterback douchebags a year later at Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org. Their immediate focus is; A) not to get killed and B) to win the war.

a_unique_person

18th June 2005, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
THREAD TRANSLATION : "Insurgents are victims of atrocities committed by the evil napalm-using Americans and it's lap dog, the semi-evil U.K.... and here's the documentation from Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org to prove it!"

Read the OP. It makes a claim, argue it, not your own interpretation. If you want to argue a completely different topic, start your own thread.

demon

18th June 2005, 05:39 AM

ZN:
"The irony is that you don't realize that soldiers on the ground don't spend time wondering how their actions will be reported by liberal monday-morning quarterback douchebags a year later at Al Jazeera, The Independant, The Guardian and Truthout.org. Their immediate focus is; A) not to get killed and B) to win the war."

What makes you think I don`t realise that?
I have no illusions that they are at all concerned how their actions will be reported and that goes for their commanders and the administration responsible for them being there in the first place.
Why should they?

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by demon

The reports of chemical weapon use in Fallujah come from more reliable witnesses than those jokers who brought you the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman BS, but oh no, people still put their faith in the boys who have watched one too many Rambo films.

On March 3 Aljazeera reported:

"Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."

The doctor reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city."

The residents of the city describe how they had witnessed "melted" bodies. ('US used banned weapons in Fallujah - Health ministry', 3 March, 2005, http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216)

Let`s remember that the US military have already admitted that they have used a more effective form of napalm (Andrew Buncombe, "US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq", The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003).
I don't swallow that. The US just decided to use the very weapons that was a significant part of the, if not reason, then at least the excuse for the war, despite the fact that they have plenty of effective conventional weapons, and that they must know what a PR disaster it would be if it got out (supported by credible evidence of course)?
Still let's assume that the entire US military went collectively mad, and decided to use chemical weapons just for the hell of it. Why is there no evidence of it? Why didn't just one of the "eye witnesses" decide to support their stories with the body of somebody killed by these weapons, or by pointing out where a chemical weapon had been used so test could be taken? I'm no expert on chemical weapons, but I'd think that it would be possible to tell that a person had been killed by mustard gas using an autopsy or that nerve gas had been used on a city block a week ago or whatever.
Also I checked on Wikipedia and if mustard gas was used where are the blind Iraqis? Mustard gas causes blindness among other things. I'm sure that both the Independent and Al- Jazeera would have been more than happy to conduct an autopsy, medical examinations or chemical tests to prove the perfidy of the US, yet mysteriously they haven't. Could there possibly be a reason for that?

ETA: Ohh, and the fatality rate for mustard gas is quite low, but the injuries can take many weeks or even months to heal. One wonders why none of the injured sought medical attention, with their serious and quite distinctive injuries?

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
Were the chemical weapons delivered by Black UN Helicoptors Mr. Gribble?

As much as you'd like to believe that only the "bad guys" use chemical weapons, it's just not true. I may, or may not have mentioned that I worked in the Defense Industry for several years. I was a technical writer for various Army weapons systems and got inside info. Here is something you'll be interested in if you believe in "black helicopter" conspiracy theories.
________

February 91 The MLRS BCW program was cancelled.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/MLRS.html
_______

For your information, MLRS is the acronym for Multiple Launch Rocket System and BCW is, Binary Chemical Warhead.

Yes, corplinx WE have been researching chemical weapons and up until February 91 WE have been developing them. Your guess is as good as mine where the stockpiles of these weapons went, my guess is they went to Iraq.

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Also I checked on Wikipedia and if mustard gas was used where are the blind Iraqis? Mustard gas causes blindness among other things. I'm sure that both the Independent and Al- Jazeera would have been more than happy to conduct an autopsy, medical examinations or chemical tests to prove the perfidy of the US, yet mysteriously they haven't. Could there possibly be a reason for that?

ETA: Ohh, and the fatality rate for mustard gas is quite low, but the injuries can take many weeks or even months to heal. One wonders why none of the injured sought medical attention, with their serious and quite distinctive injuries?

You are sooooo behind the times! Mustard gas is WWI stuff. What makes you think that the most technological military in the entire world wouldn't devote time, money and trouble to develop something that couldn't be traced? Something that likely WOULDN'T leave any witnesses? Old school is fine for trench warfare, and for selling to dictators to use on their own people, but we're talking the 21st century here!

You won't find the effects of BCWs in Wikipedia.

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
You are sooooo behind the times! Mustard gas is WWI stuff. What makes you think that the most technological military in the entire world wouldn't devote time, money and trouble to develop something that couldn't be traced? Something that likely WOULDN'T leave any witnesses? Old school is fine for trench warfare, and for selling to dictators to use on their own people, but we're talking the 21st century here!

You won't find the effects of BCWs in Wikipedia.
One of Demon's sources claimed that mustard gas was used. I'm fully aware that the US would most likely use more advanced gases if they chose to, but I rebutted the claim that was presented. Still I find it almost equally unlikely that more advances gases where used. Using real lethal chemical weapons would, if it was discovered, be a PR-disaster that could hardly be overstated. The US military possesses a rather impressive list of non-chemical weapons, so I don't think they really need to use gas weapons.

demon

18th June 2005, 08:19 AM

Rob Lister:
"It's really quite good stuff if used correctly...You can clear an enemy trench, and just the trench, if you drop it perfectly; leaving both sides pretty much unscathed..."

I look forward to the next Fred West or Jeff Dahmer being found with a big butcher's knife in his hand, while he stands over some dead kids, saying:

"It's really quite good if used correctly - what's your problem?"

Then you say " leaving both sides pretty much unscathed"

There isn't much point in a weapon that doesn't harm the enemy is there?:p

Rob Lister

18th June 2005, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by demon
Rob Lister:
"It's really quite good stuff if used correctly...You can clear an enemy trench, and just the trench, if you drop it perfectly; leaving both sides pretty much unscathed..."

I look forward to the next Fred West or Jeff Dahmer being found with a big butcher's knife in his hand, while he stands over some dead kids, saying:

"It's really quite good if used correctly - what's your problem?"

Then you say " leaving both sides pretty much unscathed"

There isn't much point in a weapon that doesn't harm the enemy is there?:p

That's an interesting take. Just goes to show that war is hell. Don't like it? Fight to stop it.

There's some irony for you.

ETA: Your last sentence escaped me at first. The object is to kill the enemy in the most efficient manner possible, while doing as little collateral damage as possible. Napalm is one such mution that can, in the right circumstances, accomplish that goal quite nicely. It is extremely tactical, percise, effective, cheap, quick. What more could any warrior want?

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
One of Demon's sources claimed that mustard gas was used. I'm fully aware that the US would most likely use more advanced gases if they chose to, but I rebutted the claim that was presented. Still I find it almost equally unlikely that more advances gases where used. Using real lethal chemical weapons would, if it was discovered, be a PR-disaster that could hardly be overstated. The US military possesses a rather impressive list of non-chemical weapons, so I don't think they really need to use gas weapons.

Gas or chemical weapons are typically used when enemy fortifications are strong enough to withstand bombardment by conventional weapons, OR, as in Fallujah, when the enemy is holed up in a building we can't simply destroy.

Can you think of a better way to clear heavily armed "insurgents" from a mosque without damaging the mosque? If you've read accounts of the aftermath of Fallujah, it was a ghost town (for whatever reason), who would know if the U.S. had used chemical weapons there?

As I said before, there were stockpiles of BCWs before development was stopped, and I once thought that the U.S. would never use these weapons, but then again, that was BEFORE we invaded a sovereign country completely unrelated to the most devastating attack on American soil.

demon

18th June 2005, 08:34 AM

Rob Lister:
"That's an interesting take. Just goes to show that war is hell. Don't like it? Fight to stop it."

Now there is the real irony.
What you say is all well and good but you (well not you personally), started a war in Iraq. That`s hardly fighting to stop war is it, infact it is the supreme war crime.

Rob Lister

18th June 2005, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by demon
Rob Lister:
"That's an interesting take. Just goes to show that war is hell. Don't like it? Fight to stop it."

Now there is the real irony.
What you say is all well and good but you (well not you personally), started a war in Iraq. That`s hardly fighting to stop war is it, infact it is the supreme war crime.

??? I was all for the war. I was for it more than a decade ago. I knew then we'd be back. You can considered ME the one that started it, if you like. I don't mind.

It has nothing to do with the irony. The irony is upon you.

ETA: If you wish to charge and convict me of a 'supreme war crime', by all means, feel free. Don't expect me to come peaceably. You'll need some guns and troops. See the irony yet?

WildCat

18th June 2005, 08:54 AM

So, let's see what we have here: The US used a weapon it never agreed not to use in any treaty, and even if it had signed the treaty that covered this type of weapon it would have still been ok to use since the target was military... no wonder truthout.org is the only group upset about this.

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
So, let's see what we have here: The US used a weapon it never agreed not to use in any treaty, and even if it had signed the treaty that covered this type of weapon it would have still been ok to use since the target was military... no wonder truthout.org is the only group upset about this.

Well, why not just use nukes if we're not tied by treaty not to? Oh, and how can you be sure all those targets are military? You can't. BTW, I don't think truthout.org are the only ones upset by this, apparently the British (our allies) are getting just a little P.O'd that Bush is continuously lying to them.

I don't know which is worse, having a blood-thirsty idiot for a leader, or having a leader who is a prison bitch to a blood-thirsty idiot?

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 09:10 AM

WildCat

18th June 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Well, why not just use nukes if we're not tied by treaty not to? Oh, and how can you be sure all those targets are military? You can't. BTW, I don't think truthout.org are the only ones upset by this, apparently the British (our allies) are getting just a little P.O'd that Bush is continuously lying to them.

I don't know which is worse, having a blood-thirsty idiot for a leader, or having a leader who is a prison bitch to a blood-thirsty idiot?
Yes, it's a fine line between a Mark 77 and a nuke... :rolleyes:

Ziggurat

18th June 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Gas or chemical weapons are typically used when enemy fortifications are strong enough to withstand bombardment by conventional weapons, OR, as in Fallujah, when the enemy is holed up in a building we can't simply destroy.

Can you think of a better way to clear heavily armed "insurgents" from a mosque without damaging the mosque?

How about by actually going into said mosques with infantry? We know quite well that the army did this. Hell, the anti-war croud was in hysterics because of what one of those soldiers did to an enemy fighter while inside a mosque. And frankly, although the military took pains not to destroy mosques, we hardly left them undamaged.

If you've read accounts of the aftermath of Fallujah, it was a ghost town (for whatever reason), who would know if the U.S. had used chemical weapons there?

Look, there were press all over Fallujah. Plenty of photos and video from the place, and not just from embedded journalists. And not a single one shows US troops in chemical warfare gear. Why is that? You really think the army would send soldiers into close combat with enemy they were using chemical weapons against, without protection? Why on earth would they do that? If they're that willing to risk our own troops, why even bother with chemical weapons at all? It simply doesn't make sense.

Plenty of people in the military also wrote about their personal experiences in Fallujah. But somehow, you think that the military is so ideologically driven that each and every single person in the entire chain of command, from the generals approving the use of chemical weapons to the officers commanding the units using them down to the supply guys who load them on the trucks to deploy them, every single one of them is happy to keep their mouths shut about this giant conspiracy just to keep a mosque from getting a few scratches? I'm really having a hard time understanding how you can be so unbelievably gullible about something like this just because it fits your anti-US military prejudice.

You've evidently started drinking heavily from the kool-aid.

But here's another account of attrocities in Fallujah that might also interest you, namely the use of biological weapons:
http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=98104
"The first miracle that occurred in Fallujah took the form of spiders that appeared in the city â€“ each spider larger than this chair, or about the size of this chair. The American soldiers left, holding the legs of this spider, and I too, in one of the Friday sermons, held up a spider, with all its magnitude, in front of the satellite channels and in front of the world. This spider also had thin black hair. If this hair touches the human body, within a short period of time the body becomes black or blue, and then there is an explosion in the blood cells in the human body - and the person dies."

Maybe you'll believe that report too.

Mycroft

18th June 2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Can you think of a better way to clear heavily armed "insurgents" from a mosque without damaging the mosque? If you've read accounts of the aftermath of Fallujah, it was a ghost town (for whatever reason), who would know if the U.S. had used chemical weapons there?

The soldier who fired the weapon would know.

WildCat

18th June 2005, 09:42 AM

Demon, if you really want to see how it's done, read this blog (http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/) by someone who is actually there. It may shock you how often US soldiers put themselves at risk to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths. Not that you'd believe any of it over anonymous sources from truthout.org or al-jazeera...

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
The troops who used it fx. Any surviving insurgents might also know, and while I obviously wouldn't take their word for it, autopsies and medical checks might prove it. As I said I'm no expert on chemical weapons, but I doubt the weapons you refer to was created to be untraceable.

I'm not too sure the troops would know. There is no way possible an M270 launcher crewman (specifically a loader) would know what warhead their rockets were carrying if identifying symbols were removed. I'm not too sure there would be many surviving insurgents if the weather conditions were just right, and who would call for autopsies of suspected victims if the use of these weapons isn't common knowledge?

The weapons aren't untracable, but when the portion of the battlefield that could have proved the U.S. is using weapons that are banned by world treaty is dead, and the other side isn't talking, who is left to be the skeptic? Certainly NOT the patriotic conservative, because as we all know, the U.S. DOESN'T kill or injure innocent people, just insurgents, right?

http://www.vietnamwar.com/PhanThiKimPhuc.htm

http://www.altavista.com/image/results?q=My+Lai+massacre&mik=photo&mip=all&mis=all&miwxh=all

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'm not too sure the troops would know. There is no way possible an M270 launcher crewman (specifically a loader) would know what warhead their rockets were carrying if identifying symbols were removed. I'm not too sure there would be many surviving insurgents if the weather conditions were just right, and who would call for autopsies of suspected victims if the use of these weapons isn't common knowledge?

The weapons aren't untracable, but when the portion of the battlefield that could have proved the U.S. is using weapons that are banned by world treaty is dead, and the other side isn't talking, who is left to be the skeptic?
Not a single insurgent survives to tell the press? Not a single American soldier notices that there's a bunch on enemy dead, with no marks on them except whatever the gas leaves? Not a single American soldier walks into the Mosque where he just launched what he believed was a high explosive, only to die from the gas? No single soldier notices that there's no/little explosion from the grenades he believes contains ordinary explosives? Remember that in your scenario most of the troops aren't in on the conspiracy and therefore can't be expected to behave accordingly.

ETA: Ohh, and it might be a little difficult to insure that the munitions where fired when the whether was just right: "see those munitions, you can only fire them when the sun is shining and there's no wind. Why? Ehmm.. Just because. No they're perfectly ordinary explosives, but ehmm... because, ehh... kind of."

Certainly NOT the patriotic conservative, because as we all know, the U.S. DOESN'T kill or injure innocent people, just insurgents, right?

http://www.vietnamwar.com/PhanThiKimPhuc.htm

http://www.altavista.com/image/results?q=My+Lai+massacre&mik=photo&mip=all&mis=all&miwxh=all
That's a nice appeal to emotion, but I fail to see any relevance to the discussion. Besides I'm neither conservative, nor particuarly patriotic.

corplinx

18th June 2005, 12:20 PM

If there is one thing this thread has shown, its that demon and mephisto are kooks. And here I thougt they were mere anti-US leftist types. We should create a subforum where they argue their conspiracy theories with Rouser2.

Mycroft

18th June 2005, 12:27 PM

Mycroft

18th June 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
If there is one thing this thread has shown, its that demon and mephisto are kooks. And here I thougt they were mere anti-US leftist types. We should create a subforum where they argue their conspiracy theories with Rouser2.

I think to be an anti-US leftist type, at some point you have to drink the cool-aid. Which is not to bash leftism or liberalism, just that special brand that requires hatred of the US.

There are right-wing analogues, of course. The kooks who believe there is something sinister about Spongebob or who believe in some secret "gay agenda," but in these forums they seem to get bashed (correctly so) by both the left and right.

curi0us

18th June 2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
At the risk of seeming out of touch, and not really willing to pollute my mind with truthout.org, can someone explain to me the problem with using Napalm? If thereâ€™s not a problem why lie about it? While the use is controversial the real concern here is how casually the U.S. engages in deception about itâ€™s activities.
In March 2003 the Pentagon denied a report in The Age that napalm had been used in an attack by US Navy planes on an Iraqi position at Safwan Hill in southern Iraq. A navy official in Washington, Lieutenant-Commander Danny Hernandez, said: "We don't even have that in our arsenal." The report was filed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was attached to units of the First US Marine Division.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."

The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Depeartment of Defense had been in fact been sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk77.htm
Does that seem reasonable to anyone?

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2005, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think to be an anti-US leftist type, at some point you have to drink the cool-aid. Which is not to bash leftism or liberalism, just that special brand that requires hatred of the US.

I think to believe that "anti-US" leftists are common or representative of the anti-war movement you have to have been hitting the kool-aid fairly hard. You won't find many leftists opposed to, say, the right to free speech or representative democracy. Leftists opposed to specific government policies sure, opposed to US international hegemony sure, but they are not the same thing as being "anti-US".

There are right-wing analogues, of course. The kooks who believe there is something sinister about Spongebob or who believe in some secret "gay agenda," but in these forums they seem to get bashed (correctly so) by both the left and right.

The way I see it, the opposite of someone who tends to assume everything is an Abu Ghraib, a Watergate, an Operation Phoenix or a Gulf of Tonkin Incident is someone who tends to assume such things can never happen again.

The left-wing analogue of the "Spongebob is evil!" crowd are the "9/11 was all staged by the government!" crowd.

As far as allegations of chemical weapons use go, they are fairly thin at the moment. Just because someone smelled something funny it does not follow that chemical weapons were used. On the other hand, if I did want to use chemical weapons to clear out a mosque I wouldn't have grunts do it. I'd pull the grunts back, send in a special forces team who know how to keep their mouths shut, and then send the grunts back in after the special forces had gassed the enemy and put a few bullets in them for effect.

On the other hand the use of napalm has been admitted, and the eyewitness reports of other atrocities (that don't involve chemical weapons or similarly exotic elements) have to be taken seriously. As Demon pointed out, it was evidence enough to convict Hussein of atrocities in the court of public opinion.

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 06:40 PM

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
On the other hand, if I did want to use chemical weapons to clear out a mosque I wouldn't have grunts do it. I'd pull the grunts back, send in a special forces team who know how to keep their mouths shut, and then send the grunts back in after the special forces had gassed the enemy and put a few bullets in them for effect.

On the other hand the use of napalm has been admitted, and the eyewitness reports of other atrocities (that don't involve chemical weapons or similarly exotic elements) have to be taken seriously. As Demon pointed out, it was evidence enough to convict Hussein of atrocities in the court of public opinion.

Thank you. Apparently someone DOES realize that the launcher crews that fire the rockets are rarely the ones to inspect the damage. Of course, there are those here who would scoff at your suggestion that the U.S. could do anything so remotely heinous.

As I said, this has become a "do as we say, not as we do" administration. Oh, and by the way, I'm NOT anti-U.S., I fought for this country AND for the freedom of speech that I like to use. My feelings are that you must exercise freedom of speech or (like a muscle) you'll loose it!

So there!

demon

18th June 2005, 07:12 PM

corplinx:
"We should create a subforum where they argue their conspiracy theories with Rouser2."

If anyone needs a forum to talk nonsense in, look a little nearer to home corps.

Remember these little gems?

"mobile weapon labs, they have them, these were also part of the much maligned powell presentation and it turns out he was right...the evil foxnews on weapon labs"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87997,00.html

"Dr. Germ has been captured. She created weapons grade anthrax for Iraq. One has to wonder what her current functions in that government were."

"Now, what has me steamed is people wailing about not finding _anything_ yet and accussing the administration for backpedaling for using WMD as a sound bite. Mind you, these current wailers are the same people who said the war would result in massive american casualties, they said the war would be long, they said we were "bogged down" after a week of war. "They" have made a load of claims that have turned out to be false. Right now I am more willing to wait and see than to fall in with the malcontents who have been wrong at every turn."

"My largest concern was Iraq's role in global terrorism"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1869937500&highlight=weapons+iraq#post1869937500

Lot of assertions there, diddly squat proof but a blind faith in Powell and his Bart Simpson pesentation antics at the UN.
I don`t think anyone will be taking any lectures from you about what is and what isn`t credible evidence.

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2005, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Thank you. Apparently someone DOES realize that the launcher crews that fire the rockets are rarely the ones to inspect the damage.

Actually I find the idea of launcher crews firing missiles with the serial numbers filed off unlikely as a means of delivering chemical weapons.

If I was doing it, I would have a dedicated and mostly self-contained special forces unit for delivering chemical weapons where they are "needed".

Mephisto

18th June 2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If I was doing it, I would have a dedicated and mostly self-contained special forces unit for delivering chemical weapons where they are "needed".

My gosh, you don't mean they could be delivered at close quarters?

;)

And it would be done so that the only people who would suspect it would be called kooks. Funny, I had people call me that when I said that there were no WMD.

Mycroft

18th June 2005, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think to believe that "anti-US" leftists are common or representative of the anti-war movement you have to have been hitting the kool-aid fairly hard.

Either that or listen to what they say.

You been to an anti-war rally?

demon

18th June 2005, 08:06 PM

Mycroft:
"Either that or listen to what they say.
You been to an anti-war rally?"

I`ve been to many and I`ve yet to meet or hear anyone attending who did not make the distinction between the current bunch of thugs who occupy the Whitehouse and the American people at large if that is what you are getting at.
It`s pretty basic stuff really, you should try it some time.

corplinx

18th June 2005, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by demon

I don`t think anyone will be taking any lectures from you about what is and what isn`t credible evidence.

It seemed credible enough at the time. Mind you, we had a person with a past history that matched the "intelligence" people such as Powell had. In other words, there was no big leap of faith. We had a character with a past history that matched the template he was unfortunately being matched to.

Let's look at you. We have reporters in the ranks. The ranks themselves are not 100 percent pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war. The ranks even write letters to Michael Moore. However, somehow we are commiting the same atrocities Saddam himself with chemical weapons and only kooks like you are "in the know". Here's your reality check slick.

peptoabysmal

18th June 2005, 09:37 PM

The only regret the US military should have here is that it wasn't open with it's allies about what it was using. Technically, the US didn't lie because it used MK77, but it is like saying "no I did not use Kleenex, I used facial tissue".

As far as the UN treaty against the use of napalm of which the US is not a signer thereof, it is specific to the use of napalm against civilians. Incendiary agents are not outlawed in warfare. True they are fearsome weapons which create painful death and mutilation, but that is war.

The only information that I can find on this so far is that the US used these weapons in specific instances in the beginning of the war and used them against the enemy's troops.

The original story linked by mephisto says something about the bombs not being accurate because they do not have fins, but they are apparently accurate enough to hit bridge approaches or an Iraqi observation post.

How about the incendiary devices filled with jet fuel and passengers used against civilians on 9/11? Does that qualify for the same kind of outrage and "international revile"?

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=1878&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
OR, this thread has shown that apparently intelligent people can still be distracted by something colorful and moving . . .

:usa:
Ahh yes, my reluctance to accept ridiculous conspiracy theories, without even the attempt of producing evidence in favour of them, is motivated by Unquestioning Patriotism. "God Save the US", "My country, right or wrong" and "God appointed George W. Bush to save us from the evildoers"; those are my mottoes.
:id::id::id:

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

As far as the UN treaty against the use of napalm of which the US is not a signer thereof, it is specific to the use of napalm against civilians. Incendiary agents are not outlawed in warfare. True they are fearsome weapons which create painful death and mutilation, but that is war.
What exactly does the treaty outlaw that was previously legal? I mean, isn't it illegal to use any weapon against civilians?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
How about the incendiary devices filled with jet fuel and passengers used against civilians on 9/11? Does that qualify for the same kind of outrage and "international revile"?
If you think back you might recall that there was a good bit of international revile after 9/11. On the other hand, I hadn't even heard about US use of Napalm in Iraq, until I read this thread.

Kerberos

18th June 2005, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Funny, I had people call me that when I said that there were no WMD.
So we should not believe that Iraq has unconventional weapons without solid evidence, but baseless and wildly implausible speculation is sufficient to conclude that the US not only has, but are using chemical weapons in Iraq?

peptoabysmal

18th June 2005, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
What exactly does the treaty outlaw that was previously legal? I mean, isn't it illegal to use any weapon against civilians?
That's what I read in the few stories about this napalm business. I haven't looked at the UN site to see the exact text of the treaty.
Is it possible the UN created a treaty that does nothing?

If you think back you might recall that there was a good bit of international revile after 9/11. ...
True, but it didn't last as long as the anti-American sentiment has. Was it all for show?

Orwell

18th June 2005, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
It seemed credible enough at the time. Mind you, we had a person with a past history that matched the "intelligence" people such as Powell had. In other words, there was no big leap of faith. We had a character with a past history that matched the template he was unfortunately being matched to.

Let's look at you. We have reporters in the ranks. The ranks themselves are not 100 percent pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war. The ranks even write letters to Michael Moore. However, somehow we are commiting the same atrocities Saddam himself with chemical weapons and only kooks like you are "in the know". Here's your reality check slick.

Mmm, stalking Mycroft sounds boring. Maybe I should stalk you instead? ;)

curi0us

18th June 2005, 11:10 PM

Also, AFAIK we are still denying use of napalm/mk77 in Fallujah but this struck me as credible:

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about exactly what is your understanding of what is used and who were the victims?
DAHR JAMAIL: I have interviewed many refugees over the last week coming out of Fallujah at different times from different locations within the city. The consistent stories that I have been getting have been refugees describing phosphorous weapons, horribly burned bodies, fires that burn on people when they touch these weapons, and they are unable to extinguish the fires even after dumping large amounts of water on the people. Many people are reporting cluster bombs, as well. And these are coming from the camps that I have been to, different people who have emerged from Fallujah anywhere from one week ago up to on through up toward near the very beginning of the siege.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/29/1448226

Is it possible the chemical weapon used(?) in Fallujah was tear gas perhaps compounded by nearby napalm? Bush authorized the use of tear gas in Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-01.htm), and in a urban warfare it seems reasonable to think it might be used with benevolent intent. However, I think itâ€™s also easy to imagine how tear gas might be perceived as a more deadly gas, especially if napalm smoke/ fumes (liquid burning plastic canâ€™t smell healthy) and itâ€™s accompanying O2 depletion are also present in the same general area.

Iâ€™m very willing to believe all the chemical weapons claim are just insurgent propaganda, but since the Iraqi health ministry took the side of the insurgents I'm inclined to wonder about other possibilities as well.

shecky

18th June 2005, 11:50 PM

I recall hearing a story about "phosphorus weapons", but I don't know anything about them or even if the story is credible.

Phosphorus, napalm... Are these off limits these days? Or only off limits depending how badly we need to win a battle?

demon

19th June 2005, 01:59 AM

corps:
"We had a character with a past history that matched the template he was unfortunately being matched to."

Sounds like "intelligence being fixed around policy" as that memo calls it, to me.
As for it being credible at the time, well if you only used Powell and the rest of the liars as your only source of info then I can see how that might happen...but even then, shaking vials of white powder at the UNSC audience, playing those half assed intercepted Iraqi commincations and projecting up those embarrassing "technical drawings" of Saddam`s mobile chemical weapons labs should have alerted anyone to the fact that this was a serious case of scraping the barrel.

As war was on the agenda for an overtly pro-war Administration it might have made sense to have listened to some of the voices crying in the wilderness for a little balance in the matter...you know, the "kooks" who said that WMD weren`t there and who wanted to give Blix his extra couple of weeks to confirm it one way other the other...of course that couldn`t be allowed because as you say:

"We had a character with a past history that matched the template he was unfortunately being matched to."

Some of us can recognize a set up when we see one.

demon

19th June 2005, 02:23 AM

pepto:
"How about the incendiary devices filled with jet fuel and passengers used against civilians on 9/11? Does that qualify for the same kind of outrage and "international revile"?"

Ah, 9/11, the crime that excuses all others.
Well it certainly did cause outrage didn`t it, all around the world until the Bush administration invaded Iraq on the back of it, turning it into a chaotic wilderness and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process, people who they hold in such low esteem that they don`t even count them.

And the guy who is suspected of masterminding it? Well, as Bush told us:

"I don't know where he is. It's not that important. It's not our priority"

They certainly got their money`s worth out of 9/11.

Mephisto

19th June 2005, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
How about the incendiary devices filled with jet fuel and passengers used against civilians on 9/11? Does that qualify for the same kind of outrage and "international revile"?[/URL]

I certainly does, and if you'll remember back, we had the world's support and sympathy after 9/11. We've unfortunately squandered that in our brash invasion of a country that some people still try to link with 9/11.

Mephisto

19th June 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
So we should not believe that Iraq has unconventional weapons without solid evidence, but baseless and wildly implausible speculation is sufficient to conclude that the US not only has, but are using chemical weapons in Iraq?

If you'll remember, Iraq was full of UN weapons inspectors, where are the weapons inspectors watching the coalition troops? Do you think that the U.S. would even allow UN weapons inspectors to survey battle damage?

Rob Lister

19th June 2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by shecky
I recall hearing a story about "phosphorus weapons", but I don't know anything about them or even if the story is credible.

Phosphorus, napalm... Are these off limits these days? Or only off limits depending how badly we need to win a battle?

I'd be surprised if phosphorus weapons were used. They no longer have much tactical value. Napalm has great tactical value, but only on open battlefields, not in cities/towns unless your intent is to burn them down.

Neither weapon is banned, so far as I know.

Note to add: If I recall, phosphorus is still used in tracer rounds but that's a different matter.

WildCat

19th June 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
If you'll remember, Iraq was full of UN weapons inspectors, where are the weapons inspectors watching the coalition troops? Do you think that the U.S. would even allow UN weapons inspectors to survey battle damage?
Yes. Do you have any evidence at all that this isn't the case? Do you have any evidence at all that chemical weapons weree used?

Ziggurat

19th June 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
I certainly does, and if you'll remember back, we had the world's support and sympathy after 9/11. We've unfortunately squandered that in our brash invasion of a country that some people still try to link with 9/11.

We never had the world's sympathy, let alone the world's support. What we did have is everyone knowing quite well that they could not afford to be seen as not showing sympathy. But honestly, the world's support? Never existed.

Remember that French article titled something like "we are all Americans"? And how it was supposed to show that even the French were with us before the cowboy screwed everything up? Well, the title sounded nice, but the text was still a typical anti-American screed that essentially blamed the US for angering terrorists enough to make them attack us. The phrase "we are all Americans" isn't about how the world is united with us in our moment of grief, it's a nihilistic accusation that the whole world is guilty and deserves such punishment. I can do without such "sympathy" and "support".

Mephisto

19th June 2005, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
On the other hand, I hadn't even heard about US use of Napalm in Iraq, until I read this thread.

Then, even if you disagree the thread has served a purpose. I would think that one should be most concerned about what we don't hear, but suspect nevertheless. These questions should be asked by the average American, they're footing the bill. What have they gotten for that bill? None of the predictions regarding Iraq have come true (minus the "we'll be there indefinitely"). We're embroiled in a conflict with no end, started by a liar, the economy sucks, American jobs aren't in America any longer, the rich are getting richer and the middle class are going to war.

And you question the government's willingness to hide from the world the weapons it uses? Hopefully, someone will question Bush's assertions that we need a "new" nuke.

Ziggurat

19th June 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
American jobs aren't in America any longer,

And yet, unemployment is still low. Go figure. Meanwhile it's skyrocketing in France and Germany. They stayed out of Iraq. By your logic, they should be doing better than us. What's the deal? Tell us, oh wise one!

WildCat

19th June 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
the economy sucks, American jobs aren't in America any longer, the rich are getting richer and the middle class are going to war.
Perhaps you should inform Greenspan (http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/feeds/ap/2005/06/09/ap2085155.html) of this fact. The old man seems to be deluded. :rolleyes: Better yet, start a new thread about it. It's off-topic here.

And you question the government's willingness to hide from the world the weapons it uses? Hopefully, someone will question Bush's assertions that we need a "new" nuke.
Psssst, this was acknowledged nearly 2 years ago. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html)

Still awaiting evidences ( ;) ) of chemical weapons use...

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto
If you'll remember, Iraq was full of UN weapons inspectors, where are the weapons inspectors watching the coalition troops? Do you think that the U.S. would even allow UN weapons inspectors to survey battle damage?
Where are the weapons inspectors? They're here (www.iht.com) and here (www.independent.co.uk) and here (www.cnn.com). And they have a much easier job than the previous weapons inspectors because it is much, much harder to hide the use of weapons than the mere existence of them. Despite this we have seen nothing even remotely resembling evidence for US use of chemical or weapons. I could say I wonder why that is, but I really don't, because the most likely answer should be obvious to any skeptic.

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That's what I read in the few stories about this napalm business. I haven't looked at the UN site to see the exact text of the treaty.
Is it possible the UN created a treaty that does nothing?
Possible yes, but I'd think it does something. If not there's really be no reason for the US to make yourselves target for criticism by not signing it.

True, but it didn't last as long as the anti-American sentiment has. Was it all for show?
Well it lasted longer than the revile for your using napalm, which was so brief that I managed to totally miss it.

demon

19th June 2005, 10:41 AM

ziggurat:
"We never had the world's sympathy, let alone the world's support. What we did have is everyone knowing quite well that they could not afford to be seen as not showing sympathy. But honestly, the world's support? Never existed."

That runs counter to my experience at the time.
There certainly was enormous sympathy and support for the US, for the people that had been killed and the families who suffered the losses and this goodwill certainly extended to efforts to caputure Osama etc.

What the sympathy and support didn`t extend to was accepting and encouraging the starting of wars of aggression against what amounted to a third world sovereign nation, destitute after ten years of the most extreme sanctions the world has ever seen, a nation that had no realistic chance of harming the US. That`s what the world didn`t support and that`s why the US tried every trick in the book including lies and misinformation to associate Saddam with 9/11 and get them onside.

The rest of the world didn`t have sympathy and support for you in the direction of military aggression...I`ll agree with that, but that`s what it always comes down to with you and it`s the only sort of support you recognize, others cheerleeding aggressive militarism against an enemy that you mythologize into an enemy that is a serious existential threat to western civilization. I see you just did the same concerning the Palestinians and their "genocidal" threat to Israel in another thread. It`s a croc.

Sympathy? Support? Goodwill? I don`t think you would recognize any of them unless they came in the shape of a bomb, a gun, or a bombed out city.

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by curi0us
Also, AFAIK we are still denying use of napalm/mk77 in Fallujah but this struck me as credible:

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about exactly what is your understanding of what is used and who were the victims?
DAHR JAMAIL: I have interviewed many refugees over the last week coming out of Fallujah at different times from different locations within the city. The consistent stories that I have been getting have been refugees describing phosphorous weapons, horribly burned bodies, fires that burn on people when they touch these weapons, and they are unable to extinguish the fires even after dumping large amounts of water on the people. Many people are reporting cluster bombs, as well. And these are coming from the camps that I have been to, different people who have emerged from Fallujah anywhere from one week ago up to on through up toward near the very beginning of the siege.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/29/1448226

Is it possible the chemical weapon used(?) in Fallujah was tear gas perhaps compounded by nearby napalm? Bush authorized the use of tear gas in Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-01.htm), and in a urban warfare it seems reasonable to think it might be used with benevolent intent. However, I think itâ€™s also easy to imagine how tear gas might be perceived as a more deadly gas, especially if napalm smoke/ fumes (liquid burning plastic canâ€™t smell healthy) and itâ€™s accompanying O2 depletion are also present in the same general area.

Iâ€™m very willing to believe all the chemical weapons claim are just insurgent propaganda, but since the Iraqi health ministry took the side of the insurgents I'm inclined to wonder about other possibilities as well.
Well it's more plausible than the theories demon and Mephisto has offered, but there's still no actual evidence for it. Also the Iraqi health ministry hasn't actually sided with the insurgents. A single official of unknown rank from the Iraqi health ministry has, quite the difference there.

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto

And you question the government's willingness to hide from the world the weapons it uses?
No I don't, I question their ability to hide the use of such weapons, and their willingness to use them despite the consequences and likelhood of discovery.

Rob Lister

19th June 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Possible yes, but I'd think it does something. If not there's really be no reason for the US to make yourselves target for criticism by not signing it.

Not true. It depends on the text and the ban therein. If we sign it we have to abide by it, and unlike some nations, we tend to abide with both the letter and spirit of such treaties (primarily because they become law). Therefore, you have to ask if making yourself a target for criticism is better or worse than the real possiblility of making your troops a target for dug-in enemy troops you have no tactical means of quickly eliminating.

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Not true. It depends on the text and the ban therein. If we sign it we have to abide by it, and unlike some nations, we tend to abide with both the letter and spirit of such treaties (primarily because they become law). Therefore, you have to ask if making yourself a target for criticism is better or worse than the real possiblility of making your troops a target for dug-in enemy troops you have no tactical means of quickly eliminating.
I suspect US compliance with both the letter and spirit of the treaties you sign, might be somewhat less than what you believe (of course that depends on which "some nations" you're thinking of). Regardless however, if the treaty doesn't ban anything that's not alreasy illegal, then the "real" possibility you envision isn't actually real.

Ziggurat

19th June 2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by demon
What the sympathy and support didn`t extend to was accepting and encouraging the starting of wars of aggression against what amounted to a third world sovereign nation

Ah yes, sovereignty. That precious concept. Can't violate the sovereignty of Iraq.

But what, exactly, WAS the sovereignty of Iraq? Did it consist of anything beyond Saddam's ability to impose his arbitrary and cruel will to anything within his borders? If so, please enlighten me. If not, why was such a thing worth protecting? Why did the "world" place value in the rule of a tyrant? Why do YOU think that such a thing is sacred, instead of an abomination?

Rob Lister

19th June 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I suspect US compliance with both the letter and spirit of the treaties you sign, might be somewhat less than what you believe (of course that depends on which "some nations" you're thinking of).

You'd have to elaborate so that what I believe is closer to reality.

Originally posted by Kerberos
Regardless however, if the treaty doesn't ban anything that's not alreasy illegal, then the "real" possibility you envision isn't actually real.

I didn't understand that clause at all. Your English is perfect (minor typo withstanding) so we may be on different wavelengths. A useful treaty either bans, requires, or allows certain acts. Signing the treaty is the thing that makes the act legal or illegal. Without the treaty, the terms legal and illegal do not exist in the international sense (a bit simplistic but mostly correct). If the treaty doesn't do one of those three things then it is, as pepto suggested, useless.

Kerberos

19th June 2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
[B]You'd have to elaborate so that what I believe is closer to reality.
Well I got the impression that you felt that the US was particularly diligent in observing all treaties in letter and spirit. Of course this, as I said, depends on which countries you where comparing to. Doesn't really matter much though.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
[B]I didn't understand that clause at all. Your English is perfect (minor typo withstanding) so we may be on different wavelengths. A useful treaty either bans, requires, or allows certain acts. Signing the treaty is the thing that makes the act legal or illegal. Without the treaty, the terms legal and illegal do not exist in the international sense (a bit simplistic but mostly correct). If the treaty doesn't do one of those three things then it is, as pepto suggested, useless.
Well what happened was that I asked pepto what the treaty actually did since attacking civilians is already outlawed (by the Geneva conventions). He then suggested that it in fact did nothing, which I said I found unlikely, because then there'd be no reason for the US to reject it. You then said that the US still might reject it if they felt it might endanger your soldiers but that can obviously only be the case, if the treaty is not in fact useless which was my point.

Mephisto

19th June 2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
And yet, unemployment is still low. Go figure. Meanwhile it's skyrocketing in France and Germany. They stayed out of Iraq. By your logic, they should be doing better than us. What's the deal? Tell us, oh wise one!

Bush's assertions that "new jobs are opening every day," should have cued you - you're counted as employed if you're in the military, right?

Unfortunately, you're also counted as employed if you took that job at McDonald's while you're waiting for a "real" job.

Rob Lister

19th June 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
Bush's assertions that "new jobs are opening every day," should have cued you - you're counted as employed if you're in the military, right?

Unfortunately, you're also counted as employed if you took that job at McDonald's while you're waiting for a "real" job.

Have you decided to switch the subject because you can no longer support your original assertions? If so, say so.

Mephisto

19th June 2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Signing the treaty is the thing that makes the act legal or illegal. Without the treaty, the terms legal and illegal do not exist in the international sense (a bit simplistic but mostly correct).

So then, all the U.S. has to do is . . . quit signing treaties that limit the use of certain weapons for humanitarian purposes and we'll always be the "good guy," right? Well, at least we won't have broken any laws that we agreed with.

Rob Lister

19th June 2005, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
So then, all the U.S. has to do is . . . quit signing treaties that limit the use of certain weapons for humanitarian purposes and we'll always be the "good guy," right? Well, at least we won't have broken any laws that we agreed with.

The last sentence is correct. The first sentence almost explains why we sign such treaties, or at least why we sign certain treaties. Almost, but not quite. A treaty must be in the best interest of the signing nation. If it is not, they will not sign. That 'interest' may come from internal influences or external influences.

CapelDodger

19th June 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
We never had the world's sympathy, let alone the world's support. What we did have is everyone knowing quite well that they could not afford to be seen as not showing sympathy. But honestly, the world's support? Never existed. This is just paranoia. "Oh yes, they said that, but they didn't mean it because they hate us so they can't have meant it." The wide coalition that attacked the Taliban, with UN support, because they wouldn't turn over bin Laden becomes a smokescreen because the rest of the world, being the rest of the world and thus not American, is against America.

As someone who is and was here in the rest of the world, I can assure you that you are talking through your arse.

a_unique_person

19th June 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
We never had the world's sympathy, let alone the world's support. What we did have is everyone knowing quite well that they could not afford to be seen as not showing sympathy. But honestly, the world's support? Never existed.

Remember that French article titled something like "we are all Americans"? And how it was supposed to show that even the French were with us before the cowboy screwed everything up? Well, the title sounded nice, but the text was still a typical anti-American screed that essentially blamed the US for angering terrorists enough to make them attack us. The phrase "we are all Americans" isn't about how the world is united with us in our moment of grief, it's a nihilistic accusation that the whole world is guilty and deserves such punishment. I can do without such "sympathy" and "support".

Rubbish, where were the mass marches against the Afghanistan invasion, not just around the world, but in the US?

CapelDodger

19th June 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Rubbish, where were the mass marches against the Afghanistan invasion, not just around the world, but in the US? Quite, and where were the mass marches against the Kuwait War - another UN-backed coalition effort? There were marches against the Vietnam War, but just as much in the US as elsewhere, and the same can be said for the Iraq War. To such as Ziggurat, going by his "Never existed" post, there is nothing the world can do to convince them that the US doesn't have its back to the wall against global hostility, occasionally grudgingly concelaed from ... well, who, given that they're all in it?.

There are, of course, Brits who cannot be persuaded that the EU is anything but a conspiracy against the UK and Muslims who cannot be persuaded that the rest of the world is not conspiring against Islam. There are Serbs who think the whole world is engaged in a conspiracy against them. It's a common human personality type.

WildCat

19th June 2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Quite, and where were the mass marches against the Kuwait War - another UN-backed coalition effort?
My my, how soon we forget! (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7672/gulf.html)
Across the world, millions of people took to the streets to protest against the war.

On the weekend before war broke out 100,000 marched against war in London, 15,000 in Manchester, 10,000 in Glasgow, 3,000 in Bristol. There were also protests in many smaller towns.

On the same weekend a quarter of a million marched in 120 German cities. Well over 200,000 marched in 150 towns and cities across France. 100,000 marched in Rome, 40,000 in Brussels and 60,000 in Istanbul. More than 75,000 attended rallies in Madrid and Barcelona, which ended in clashes with police. There were demos in Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, in over 30 cities and towns in Canada, and all across the USA.

Thing hotted up as the threat of war became reality on 16 January. 100,000 marched in San Francisco; in the same city 1000 people were arrested in a single day of protests. In Washington, 250,000 marched. Bank windows were brick- ed and a fence torn down outside the FBI building. In Los Angeles, blood and oil was poured on the steps of a federal building.

In Germany roads and railway lines were blocked and department stores set on fire. In Berlin petrol bombs were thrown in clashes outside the US diplomatic mission. Education came to a virtual standstill as teachers and pupils joined demos.

In Paris police were stoned, shop windows smashed, rubbish bins set on fire after a demo. In Amsterdam, street fires were started outside the US consulate. There were large protests in Australia, where the government sent two frigates and a supply ship to the Gulf. 30,000 marched in Sydney, including Vietnam veterans. 15,000 marched in Tokyo.

400,000 took part in a march in Algiers, where youths stormed the UN headquarters, ripping down the flag and burning it. There was a massive demonstration in the city of Kassala in Sudan, while in Morocco 300,000 were on the streets of Rabat to oppose the war. As well as sending troops to support the Coalition, the Moroccan government used the army against the working class at home. Troops killed at least 100 people during riots in December following a one-day general strike for higher wages after subsidies on basic foodstuffs were cut on the orders of the IMF.

Do you need more?

WildCat

19th June 2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Rubbish, where were the mass marches against the Afghanistan invasion, not just around the world, but in the US?
Why, they were right here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/nyc-o12.shtml), organized by the usual suspects, of course.
Over 10,000 people turned out in New York City on Sunday, October 7 to oppose the Bush administrationâ€™s so-called war on terrorism...

...The significance of the demonstration, however, lay in the active opposition of thousands of people to US military aggression in the city most affected by the terrorist attack, even in the face of a patriotic media frenzy. The October 7 march was only the latest in a string of anti-war protests in major US cities and on college campuses, including some 20,000 people rallying in Washington DC on September 29.

Mycroft

19th June 2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
Why, they were right here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/nyc-o12.shtml), organized by the usual suspects, of course.

D'oh! You beat me to it. Here are the links I collected:

Montreal, October 8, 2001. Protesting war in Afghanistan. (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-war-montrealdemo.html)

John Pilger: "The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan. (http://archive.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20011031.html)

Trafalgar Square, November 18, 2001. Thousands join anti-war march. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1662656.stm)

peptoabysmal

19th June 2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by demon
pepto:
"How about the incendiary devices filled with jet fuel and passengers used against civilians on 9/11? Does that qualify for the same kind of outrage and "international revile"?"

Ah, 9/11, the crime that excuses all others.
Well it certainly did cause outrage didn`t it, all around the world until the Bush administration invaded Iraq on the back of it, turning it into a chaotic wilderness and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process, people who they hold in such low esteem that they don`t even count them.

And the guy who is suspected of masterminding it? Well, as Bush told us:

"I don't know where he is. It's not that important. It's not our priority"

They certainly got their money`s worth out of 9/11.

So, I guess your answer is "no"?

Orwell

19th June 2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
D'oh! You beat me to it. Here are the links I collected:

Montreal, October 8, 2001. Protesting war in Afghanistan. (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-war-montrealdemo.html)

John Pilger: "The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan. (http://archive.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20011031.html)

Trafalgar Square, November 18, 2001. Thousands join anti-war march. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1662656.stm)

There will always be a certain number of people who will protest any action the US will take. You're the biggest and most powerful country in the world. That's the way it is.

Now, let's compare your numbers about Afghanistan to this:

Millions Around Globe Protest Iraq War (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03.htm)

There was opposition to the Afghanistan invasion, but it was relatively small, and concentrated amongst people in the political fringe. But the opposition to the Iraqi adventure was huge and widespread.

I thought that there were legitimate reasons for the Afghanistan action. But I was one of the over 20 000 who manifested in Montreal against the Iraqi war. Nothing that has happened since has made me regret my participation in that march.

peptoabysmal

19th June 2005, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto
If you'll remember, Iraq was full of UN weapons inspectors, where are the weapons inspectors watching the coalition troops? Do you think that the U.S. would even allow UN weapons inspectors to survey battle damage?

Is this back to your charge that the US used WMD against Iraq? What color is the sky in your world?

a_unique_person

20th June 2005, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Orwell
There will always be a certain number of people who will protest any action the US will take. You're the biggest and most powerful country in the world. That's the way it is.

Now, let's compare your numbers about Afghanistan to this:

Millions Around Globe Protest Iraq War (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03.htm)

There was opposition to the Afghanistan invasion, but it was relatively small, and concentrated amongst people in the political fringe. But the opposition to the Iraqi adventure was huge and widespread.

I thought that there were legitimate reasons for the Afghanistan action. But I was one of the over 20 000 who manifested in Montreal against the Iraqi war. Nothing that has happened since has made me regret my participation in that march.

Which was my point, the magnitude between the size of the protests was huge.

a_unique_person

20th June 2005, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
Why, they were right here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/nyc-o12.shtml), organized by the usual suspects, of course.

All of a sudden, you believe the SWS when they quote numbers at a march.

You know perfectly well what I was claiming, the numbers at marches around the world were huge against Iraq, against Afghanistan they were much smaller, even though there were marches.

a_unique_person

20th June 2005, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
So we should not believe that Iraq has unconventional weapons without solid evidence, but baseless and wildly implausible speculation is sufficient to conclude that the US not only has, but are using chemical weapons in Iraq?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hill-defends-US-on-use-of-napalm-in-Iraq/2005/06/20/1119250923678.html

The decidedly pro-US defence minister in Australia, defends the use of napalm.

Senator Hill said he was confident that the US had complied with its international obligations.

"In fact I am confident that it would exceed its obligations under the international conventions," he said.

"Because its basic values are ones of humanitarian response and a requirement to achieve the military objectives in the best possible way."

a_unique_person

20th June 2005, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
Why, they were right here (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/nyc-o12.shtml), organized by the usual suspects, of course.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/peace_protest.html

Cities like Boston and Chicago saw similar peace rallies. In New York City, more than 1,000 antiwar protesters demonstrated less than two miles from Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center buildings.

The difference in magnitude of protests between the two wars was significant, at least an order of ten, my reckoning, about 100 or 1000.

Kerberos

20th June 2005, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hill-defends-US-on-use-of-napalm-in-Iraq/2005/06/20/1119250923678.html

The decidedly pro-US defence minister in Australia, defends the use of napalm.
So? Napalm isn't a chemical weapon.

Ziggurat

20th June 2005, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
As someone who is and was here in the rest of the world, I can assure you that you are talking through your arse.

I was in England during the Afghanistan invasion. England has been one of our most steadfast allies and greatest supporters. And yet, I remember quite clearly that the debate over the war on English TV was dominated by whether or not we were using cluster bombs, and how terrible they were. I can only guess what things must have been like in France. Now the nominal issue is napalm. I guess some things never change. When our opponents can't attack the main issue (ousting the Taliban and Saddam), they go for side issues and try to make them the main issue.

WildCat

20th June 2005, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/peace_protest.html

The difference in magnitude of protests between the two wars was significant, at least an order of ten, my reckoning, about 100 or 1000.
Please be more specific... what is the critical mass to qualify as a "mass demonstration". 1000? 1250? More?

richardm

20th June 2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I was in England during the Afghanistan invasion. England has been one of our most steadfast allies and greatest supporters. And yet, I remember quite clearly that the debate over the war on English TV was dominated by whether or not we were using cluster bombs, and how terrible they were. I can only guess what things must have been like in France. Now the nominal issue is napalm. I guess some things never change. When our opponents can't attack the main issue (ousting the Taliban and Saddam), they go for side issues and try to make them the main issue.

People are continuing to attack the main issue as well. There's no reason why more than one thing can't be debated at once.

Re: the debate on "English" TV; has it occurred to you that perhaps the media were broadly in support of attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan, so all that remained to argue about was the method of doing so?

Ziggurat

20th June 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Re: the debate on "English" TV; has it occurred to you that perhaps the media were broadly in support of attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan, so all that remained to argue about was the method of doing so?

Sure, that occured to me, but what I saw didn't back that idea up. The media shouldn't just be focusing on "debate". Why wasn't there more information about the history of the Taliban, how they came to power, what their ideology really was, who their backers were, what conditions were like in Afghanistan before we went in? That was important information, whatever side you're on, even if everyone is in agreement. And most people knew little about it. I know I didn't know a whole lot about it. Why didn't British TV spend time actually, you know, INFORMING people? Isn't that supposed to be their primary job? But that's not what happened. What I kept seeing was people demanding to know why the government was using cluster bombs, activists demanding answers, and government officials being put on the defensive about the issue. No, this was not simply a matter of nothing else to argue about, because there sure as hell was a lot else to TALK about. But it wasn't happening. So I can only conclude that the cluster bombs were what the media WANTED to talk about, and were not simply the only thing left on the table.