US aproves...

[Inabon]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 counterinsurgency offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, but defended their use as legal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. military had not used the highly flammable weapons against civilians, contrary to an Italian state television report this month which said the weapons were used against men, women and children in Falluja who were burned to the bone.

"We categorically deny that claim," Venable said.

more here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Inabon]

they say they did not shoot civilians ofcourse they did not they were surgical about it


yeah right

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Inabon

they say they did not shoot civilians ofcourse they did not they were surgical about it


yeah right

Why do you so easily believe they shoot civilians?

[Inabon]

why do you so easily believe they don't?

[Inabon]

i mean aside from history of 3 wars where civilians got fucked buy every military force.

don't tell me you believe they are 100% 0 casualties.

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Inabon

why do you so easily believe they don't?

Just answer the question already.

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Inabon

i mean aside from history of 3 wars where civilians got fucked buy every military force.

don't tell me you believe they are 100% 0 casualties.

Mistakes happen. You just seem to want to believe the worse, especially if it's America is all. And I'm wondering why that bias.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Mistakes happen. You just seem to want to believe the worse, especially if it's America is all. And I'm wondering why that bias.

no man

i am not saying america is the worse i like america but i just wish you and others will realize that you are not always 100% correct and that there is more to the world than america.

all of you jumped to the conclusion that the report saying citizens were being burnt was paranoid.

now that military says they used it but they did not shoot civilians but they used it.

just by using it they increased the chances of that article being true by 100 fold.

i would have shut up if the usa did not say they used the damn weapon but they did


that is the whole point.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Inabon

they say they did not shoot civilians ofcourse they did not they were surgical about it


yeah right

You are aware of the fact that the fighters in Falujah were not members of a regular army, and were not playing by anything resembling "the rules of war", right?

You are aware of the fact that terrorists live for the opportunity to open fire on troops or police with the expressed INTENTION of drawing civilian casualtiest? You know that the hope that they can get us to return fire and kill innocents often drives their tactics, right?

You are aware of the fact that by the time U.S. troops attempted to retake Falujah more than enough time had elapsed to allow innocent civilians the opportunity to evacuate, right?

I'm no dummie. I have no doubt that there are more than enough Lt. Calley-wannabes and "Christian" soldiers on a killaragheadforchrist trip on the ground in Iraq, and if they catch those cocksuckers I think we ought to turn them over to the Iraqis for trial as war criminals (not that it will every happen).

But don't get pissy about U.S. troops using nasty weapons to kill bad guys.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

You are aware of the fact that the fighters in Falujah were not members of a regular army, and were not playing by anything resembling "the rules of war", right?

You are aware of the fact that terrorists live for the opportunity to open fire on troops or police with the expressed INTENTION of drawing civilian casualtiest? You know that the hope that they can get us to return fire and kill innocents often drives their tactics, right?

You are aware of the fact that by the time U.S. troops attempted to retake Falujah more than enough time had elapsed to allow innocent civilians the opportunity to evacuate, right?

I'm no dummie. I have no doubt that there are more than enough Lt. Calley-wannabes and "Christian" soldiers on a killaragheadforchrist trip on the ground in Iraq, and if they catch those cocksuckers I think we ought to turn them over to the Iraqis for trial as war criminals (not that it will every happen).

But don't get pissy about U.S. troops using nasty weapons to kill bad guys.

no man

i am pissy about the fact that you dismissed an article (well not you i think) just because it was from someone in iraq

now military says it used it after all you guys almost put hand in fire saying it was paranoid.


and now you all try to just justify it by saying well the others are not regular army etc etc

the point is the article may have not been so paranoid as you all said.

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Inabon

no man

i am not saying america is the worse i like america but i just wish you and others will realize that you are not always 100% correct and that there is more to the world than america.

all of you jumped to the conclusion that the report saying citizens were being burnt was paranoid.

now that military says they used it but they did not shoot civilians but they used it.

just by using it they increased the chances of that article being true by 100 fold.

i would have shut up if the usa did not say they used the damn weapon but they did


that is the whole point.

First, I know there's more to the world than America. (But what does that have to do with this article and you believing it so readily?)

Second, no, no one jumped saying it was paranoia. Folks jumped because it came out a year later from an unreliable source, and during the ensuing year somehow it never came out. It was subscribed to as possible propaganda, not paranoia.

Oh, so before the important thing was using it against citizens, now using it at all is the point. Ok, you seem to change things to suit an obvious bias against America.

Here's the funny thing. I am willing to say it COULD happen, but probably didn't. You however seem unwilling to say it COULD NOT happen, and that it MUST have happened.

So while you intimate that "we" are closed minded. I have to say that better describes "you" than "us".

And again, I'm wondering why?

And I'll be back later to find out the answer. ... SHould you answer it.

[Trev]

Originally Posted by Dravyk

First, I know there's more to the world than America. (But what does that have to do with this article and you believing it so readily?)

Second, no, no one jumped saying it was paranoia. Folks jumped because it came out a year later from an unreliable source, and during the ensuing year somehow it never came out. It was subscribed to as possible propaganda, not paranoia.

Oh, so before the important thing was using it against citizens, now using it at all is the point. Ok, you seem to change things to suit an obvious bias against America.

Here's the funny thing. I am willing to say it COULD happen, but probably didn't. You however seem unwilling to say it COULD NOT happen, and that it MUST have happened.

So while you intimate that "we" are closed minded. I have to say that better describes "you" than "us".

And again, I'm wondering why?

And I'll be back later to find out the answer. ... SHould you answer it.

I'll just drop my two bits in and say that it may not have happened but it probably did.

[PornoDoggy]

Well, you were right ... I never said the article was false.

I saw no evidence to suggest that the article was false.

I thought that comments about the fact that the paper which released it was Italian said a lot more about the people making the comments than it did about the facts.

I've said all along that I don't consider that weapon to be banned, chemical, or out-of-place in an environment like Falujah.

I'm not trying to justify the death of innocent civilians.

I am saying that the fact that the folks we are fighting more than welcome the death of innocent civilians, but go out of their way to cause the death of innocent civilians, has to be taken into consideration. The fact that the civilians were hit by the weapon may have been the goal of/fault of the terrorists, and not the people who used the weapon.

It's a mean nasty weapon. I won't rule out the possibilty that the person who used it did so deliberately, but I don't see any reason to believe that they did just because a mean nasty weapon was used.

If some cocksucker is shooting at me, I am going to shoot back with everything I got. A soldier in the field has two jobs - stay alive and kill bad guys, not necessarily in that order. Bad things happen when mean nasty weapons are being used.

[Anthony]

We really should make Puerto Rica the 51st state.

Make them speak English, and learn United States history.

[Inabon]

ok then call it stale mate i have the same right you do to say that it probably did. we both have the same sources. you think they did not i think they did.

however i can go back in history, books, internet and find more reasons to believe they did than the contrary.

and you can call my bias against america yes i am biased. i only need to show you pictures of people ran over by tanks and shot in the head in a car in panama. what pissed me off the most about that issue is that in america (yeah in puerto rico too) all we saw were helicopters landing, military men in tanks with rock music on speakers trying to get noriega out of a building.

there is even a documentary made by americans about it where they show the hi probabilities of the military using weapons against civilians.

[PornoDoggy]

Don't see why we should treat Puerto Rico any different than any other islands we stole at that time, myself ...

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

We really should make Puerto Rica the 51st state.

Make them speak English, and learn United States history.

well you live in FL you know the oposite is happening hahaha.

i was amazed at how much spanish i spoke on the last show.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Don't see why we should treat Puerto Rico any different than any other islands we stole at that time, myself ...

We made the Phillipines a republic. They didn't want to be a part of the US.

But Puerto Rico, those fuckers want all the benefits of being an american, but none of the cost.

I say we make them a state!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Inabon

well you live in FL you know the oposite is happening hahaha.

i was amazed at how much spanish i spoke on the last show.

That's because you spoke spanish. I usually say when they start speaking spanish.

"No speaka da spic"

Works every time!

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

You are aware of the fact that the fighters in Falujah were not members of a regular army, and were not playing by anything resembling "the rules of war", right?

You are aware of the fact that terrorists live for the opportunity to open fire on troops or police with the expressed INTENTION of drawing civilian casualtiest? You know that the hope that they can get us to return fire and kill innocents often drives their tactics, right?

You are aware of the fact that by the time U.S. troops attempted to retake Falujah more than enough time had elapsed to allow innocent civilians the opportunity to evacuate, right?

I'm no dummie. I have no doubt that there are more than enough Lt. Calley-wannabes and "Christian" soldiers on a killaragheadforchrist trip on the ground in Iraq, and if they catch those cocksuckers I think we ought to turn them over to the Iraqis for trial as war criminals (not that it will every happen).

But don't get pissy about U.S. troops using nasty weapons to kill bad guys.

Bad guys???

Ummm the assumption here is that The US had the right to invade.

The majority of the terrorists are and were in Saudi , Syria and Iran

We know that the invasion was carried out on false inteligence in extemis with most nations being against it.

Perhaps from the point of view of the average Iraqi they were merely defending there home land.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Don't see why we should treat Puerto Rico any different than any other islands we stole at that time, myself ...

true and all the power to you

but you are talking about back when spanish american war

i am talking about how tv was censored. in 1989

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

We made the Phillipines a republic. They didn't want to be a part of the US.

But Puerto Rico, those fuckers want all the benefits of being an american, but none of the cost.

I say we make them a state!

yeah i agree on that.

and you will see a lot of those fuckers crying give me my independence

then we make them work

me i went to a republic so i did not have to wait till it was a state.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

Bad guys???

Ummm the assumption here is that The US had the right to invade.

The majority of the terrorists are and were in Saudi , Syria and Iran

We know that the invasion was carried out on false inteligence in extemis with most nations being against it.

Perhaps from the point of view of the average Iraqi they were merely defending there home land.

I ponder the difference between an iraqui fighter and myself if the united states was invaded.

Don't really come up with much difference, other than better taste in clothes and I don't partake of sheep fucking.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I ponder the difference between an iraqui fighter and myself if the united states was invaded.

Don't really come up with much difference, other than better taste in clothes and I don't partake of sheep fucking.

well in your case you would probably take out 500 with the weapons you have before they even get close to you.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

Bad guys???

Ummm the assumption here is that The US had the right to invade.

The majority of the terrorists are and were in Saudi , Syria and Iran

We know that the invasion was carried out on false inteligence in extemis with most nations being against it.

Perhaps from the point of view of the average Iraqi they were merely defending there home land.

no man they are not going to understand that. remember they were fed the idea that it was because of 911 and WDM that they went and invaded iraq.

but still according to their theory there is a bigger chance of iraquis being the bad guys cause they are defending their land from an army that decided to go there because of 911.

and please don't tell me that it was because of the WMD because what happened on 911 was lack of security not an invasion.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

Bad guys???

Ummm the assumption here is that The US had the right to invade.

The majority of the terrorists are and were in Saudi , Syria and Iran

We know that the invasion was carried out on false inteligence in extemis with most nations being against it.

Perhaps from the point of view of the average Iraqi they were merely defending there home land.

Excuse me, sir ... On a macro level, I don't disagree with you. I think that some of the fighting and the tactics on the part of the "resistance" in Falujah was directed by the same Saudi/Iranian terrorists, however.

In the context I was using the term "bad guys", I was referring to the cocksuckers who might be shooting at the grunt who used the weapon.

Whether or not the grunt who used the weapon should have been there to do so is a question for the politicians.

The fact of the matter is, he was there. Some cocksucker in a suit ordered a khaki-clad cocksucker to order the grunts to retake the town.

Don't blame the cocksucker on the ground trying to do his job (kill the cocksuckers trying to kill him, and keep his grunt ass alive).

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Excuse me, sir ... On a macro level, I don't disagree with you. I think that some of the fighting and the tactics on the part of the "resistance" in Falujah was directed by the same Saudi/Iranian terrorists, however.

In the context I was using the term "bad guys", I was referring to the cocksuckers who might be shooting at the grunt who used the weapon.

Whether or not the grunt who used the weapon should have been there to do so is a question for the politicians.

The fact of the matter is, he was there. Some cocksucker in a suit ordered a khaki-clad cocksucker to order the grunts to retake the town.

Don't blame the cocksucker on the ground trying to do his job (kill the cocksuckers trying to kill him, and keep his grunt ass alive).

LOL

On a microlevel I agree 100% Just yanking chains.

Frankly I think the dumbest idea is not suspending reporting in a war zone.

The populace should during an action be treated as a mushroom.

On a slight digress..

Did any soldiers refuse to go on the grounds that they believed it be an illegal action and thus the order was illegal?

[Nickatilynx]

BTW...isn't Saddam charged with the illegal use of Chemical weapons?

Shouldn't GW be therefore charged?

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Excuse me, sir ... On a macro level, I don't disagree with you. I think that some of the fighting and the tactics on the part of the "resistance" in Falujah was directed by the same Saudi/Iranian terrorists, however.

In the context I was using the term "bad guys", I was referring to the cocksuckers who might be shooting at the grunt who used the weapon.

Whether or not the grunt who used the weapon should have been there to do so is a question for the politicians.

The fact of the matter is, he was there. Some cocksucker in a suit ordered a khaki-clad cocksucker to order the grunts to retake the town.

Don't blame the cocksucker on the ground trying to do his job (kill the cocksuckers trying to kill him, and keep his grunt ass alive).

ok cool i think we are better if we talk macro. cause ofcourse i will not pretend soildiers saying excuse me sir can you move over i need to shoot at the guy that is shooting at me.

macro if we see it macro i think we may agree one day.

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

LOL

On a microlevel I agree 100% Just yanking chains.

Frankly I think the dumbest idea is not suspending reporting in a war zone.

The populace should during an action be treated as a mushroom.

On a slight digress..

Did any soldiers refuse to go on the grounds that they believed it be an illegal action and thus the order was illegal?

i think they can not do that can't they? isn't it like once you go you go and follow orders?

[Inabon]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

BTW...isn't Saddam charged with the illegal use of Chemical weapons?

Shouldn't GW be therefore charged?

well i don't know because those are not considered chemical however there was a treaty usa did not sign so i guess that made it not ilegal

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

You are aware of the fact that by the time U.S. troops attempted to retake Falujah more than enough time had elapsed to allow innocent civilians the opportunity to evacuate, right?

Did they have more or less time to evacuate than say...oh I dunno...say people told that a hurricane was coming?

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Inabon

well i don't know because those are not considered chemical however there was a treaty usa did not sign so i guess that made it not ilegal

Willy Pete is classed as a chemical weapon by nearly everyone else...oh yeah...that's right. It doesn't count then

[PornoDoggy]

There have been a few who've refused. They have been tried, mostly quietly (although you'll sometimes see a case in a local paper when a native is involved, and the San Diego press has covered a couple of cases briefely), given a slap-on-the-wrist jail term, and discharged.