Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

  1. #1
    Gold Member deckchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Canadian eh?
    Posts
    832

    Default Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    I have been watching the news regarding torture and chemical weapons use by the American forces in Iraq. I am going to excerpt certain passages, like this, but I will post the links so you can read the complete article in context. All of these "reputable" news sources.

    I am not making accusations, I just want some discussions on this matter. An informed and thoughtful public is the best defense against injustices.

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq has launched an investigation into allegations, denied by the Pentagon, that U.S. soldiers aimed artillery rounds of flammable white phosphorus at civilians.

    description of "white phosphorus" http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html

    This is the "napalm" of our generation, why the hell would anyone use this stuff on humans?

    A protocol to an accord on conventional weapons that came into force in 1983 forbids the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, Reuters said.

    The protocol also bans their use against military targets near concentrations of civilians, except when they are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties, the news agency added. However, while the U.S. signed the overall accord, it did not ratify the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.


    Why the hell not?

    source for above http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ous/index.html

    CIA report questioned legality of interrogation methods, sources say

    [JURIST] A classified Central Intelligence Agency [official website] report issued in 2004 questioned whether certain interrogation tactics approved by the agency for use against terrorism suspects would violate the UN Convention Against Torture [text], current and former intelligence officials have reported. The previously undisclosed report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson [official profile] warned that procedures approved in 2002, while not constituting torture [JURIST news archive] under the UN Convention, could fall afoul of a lesser restriction that bars "cruel, inhuman or degrading" actions.


    The CIA was using methods they knew were wrong.

    source http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...egality-of.php


    UN press release - http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hurica...6?opendocument

    Geneva Convention - http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256EA90026A03C

    Essential Rules - Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

    Amnesty International - http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140572004

    Based on the above information, and the standard definition of torture, the U.S. is dangerously close to being, or they flatout are, guilty of war crimes.
    Vegetarian - Old Indian word for "Bad Hunter"

  2. #2
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    You're not imagining things. There have been numerous
    reports from non-American sources that claim the U.S.
    used napalm (or its current equivalent, white phosphorus)
    on Fallujah:

    GS red cross napalm fallujah

    The Daily Kos quotes a British journo:

    It seems that, as in Vietnam where napalm and white phosphorus --
    unbearably gruesome weapons -- were commonly employed, American troops
    have already used white phosphorus in Falluja. ("Some artillery guns fired
    white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be
    extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a
    substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white
    phosphorous burns.")
    Not only does the white phosphorus create third-degree burns
    on human skin, but when you put water on it, it creates
    sulphuric acid, which continues to burn the skin.

    The use of these weapons has been reported by xinhua news
    in China, among others.

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  3. #3
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    More:
    http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/e...=123&num=13505

    The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction
    between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942,
    and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs.

    They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel
    and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

    Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use
    would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably
    similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

    Is that supposed to be funny? The Bush junta chooses to use
    modern napalm because it caused 'less environmental damage'?
    I wonder if they'll use it on eco-protestors in Alaska, should any materialize.


    But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org,
    said:
    *"You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm.
    It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different
    petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has
    used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that
    uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the
    firebombs "napalm
    ".

    You can't argue with the Bush regime. They're sociopathic. They're
    experiencing, and promoting, "cognitive dissonance" on a global scale,
    and it's going to come crashing down on them.
    Last edited by ourmaninBusan; November 18th, 2005 at 10:39 AM.

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  4. #4
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    381

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Things like this piss me off!

    Here is a video where you can watch the Italian documentary about the U.S. military using phosphorous on Fallujah. Just click under the English version to see it:
    http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp

    The allied troops MASSACRED Fallujah. So many innocent civilians were killed on PURPOSE by allied troops yet there was no global media outrage because they do not want you to see the truth. I do not know WHY this isn't deemed as war crimes.
    Oh yes, because it is done by the allied troops and government forces who are seen as the "good guys" in the Western world.

    The worst violators of nature and human rights ever go to jail. They hold the keys to it.

    How come stories like this never get any attention in the western media?
    Have you heard accounts of stories like these from a 17 year old teenager?
    ...
    "On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered. This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.

    "Me and my 13-year-old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father's pocket."

    For those who might not have read about it last year, Fallujah was flattened. Hospitals were taken over by U.S. troops (the Nazzal Emergency Hospital was actually destroyed by U.S. air raids before the November siege began, which the BBC reported), Iraqis fleeing the bombing were shot by snipers, evidence of napalm-like incendiary bombs, banned by the UN 25 years ago, abounds, and Aljazeera reported eye-witness accounts of tanks routinely rolling over wounded Iraqis in the street.
    http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/highbias.aspx
    Aren't these war crimes?Where is the outrage?Why are these people left to die in vain?Where is the justice in all of this?

  5. #5
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    381

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Here is an article about accounts of what happened in Fallujah:
    February 08, 2005
    Stories from Fallujah
    These are the stories that will continue to emerge from the rubble of Fallujah for years. No, for generations…

    Speaking on condition of anonymity, the doctor sits with me in a hotel room in Amman, where he is now a refugee. He’d spoken about what he saw in Fallujah in the UK, and now is under threat by the US military if he returns to Iraq.

    “I started speaking about what happened in Fallujah during both sieges in order to raise awareness, and the Americans raided my house three times,” he says, talking so fast I can barely keep up. He is driven to tell what he’s witnessed, and as a doctor working inside Fallujah, he has video and photographic proof of all that he tells me.

    “I entered Fallujah with a British medical and humanitarian convoy at the end of December, and stayed until the end of January,” he explains, “But I was in Fallujah before that to work with people and see what their needs were, so I was in there since the beginning of December.”

    When I ask him to explain what he saw when he first entered Fallujah in December he says it was like a tsunami struck the city.

    “Fallujah is surrounded by refugee camps where people are living in tents and old cars,” he explains, “It reminded me of Palestinian refugees. I saw children coughing because of the cold, and there are no medicines. Most everyone left their houses with nothing, and no money, so how can they live depending only on humanitarian aid?”

    The doctors says that in one refugee camp in the northern area of Fallujah there were 1,200 students living in seven tents.

    “The disaster caused by this siege is so much worse than the first one, which I witnessed first hand,” he says, and then tells me he’ll use one story as an example.

    “One story is of a young girl who is 16 years old,” he says of one of the testimonies he video taped recently, “She stayed for three days with the bodies of her family who were killed in their home. When the soldiers entered she was in her home with her father, mother, 12 year-old brother and two sisters. She watched the soldiers enter and shoot her mother and father directly, without saying anything.”

    The girl managed to hide behind the refrigerator with her brother and witnessed the war crimes first-hand.

    “They beat her two sisters, then shot them in the head,” he said. After this her brother was enraged and ran at the soldiers while shouting at them, so they shot him dead.

    “She continued hiding after the soldiers left and stayed with her sisters because they were bleeding, but still alive. She was too afraid to call for help because she feared the soldiers would come back and kill her as well. She stayed for three days, with no water and no food. Eventually one of the American snipers saw her and took her to the hospital,” he added before reminding me again that he had all of her testimony documented on film.

    He briefly told me of another story he documented of a mother who was in her home during the siege. “On the fifth day of the siege her home was bombed, and the roof fell on her son, cutting his legs off,” he says while using his hands to make cutting motions on his legs, “For hours she couldn’t go outside because they announced that anyone going in the street would be shot. So all she could do was wrap his legs and watch him die before her eyes.”

    He pauses for a few deep breaths, then continues, “All I can say is that Fallujah is like it was struck by a tsunami. There weren’t many families in there after the siege, but they had absolutely nothing. The suffering was beyond what you can imagine. When the Americans finally let us in people were fighting just for a blanket.”

    “One of my colleagues, Dr. Saleh Alsawi, he was speaking so angrily about them. He was in the main hospital when they raided it at the beginning of the seige. They entered the theater room when they were working on a patient…he was there because he’s an anesthesiologist. They entered with their boots on, beat the doctors and took them out, leaving the patient on the table to die.”

    This story has already been reported in the Arab media.

    The doctor tells me of the bombing of the Hay Nazal clinic during the first week of the siege.

    “This contained all the foreign aid and medical instruments we had. All the US military commanders knew this, because we told them about it so they wouldn’t bomb it. But this was one of the clinics bombed, and in the first week of the siege they bombed it two times.”

    He then adds, “Of course they targeted all our ambulances and doctors. Everyone knows this.”

    The doctor tells me he and some other doctors are trying to sue the US military for the following incident, for which he has the testimonial evidence on tape.

    It is a story I was told by several refugees in Baghdad as well…at the end of last November while the siege was still in progress.

    “During the second week of the siege they entered and announced that all the families have to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy,” he says.

    “We documented this story with video-a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting ‘Now!’ in English, and shooting started everywhere.”

    The family was all carrying white flags, as instructed, according to the young man who gave his testimony. Yet he watched his mother and father shot by snipers-his mother in the head and his father shot in the heart. His two aunts were shot, then his brother was shot in the neck. The man stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he was shot in the side.

    “After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm,” continues the doctor, “So after awhile he raised his hand and they shot his hand.”

    A six year-old boy of the family was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was then shot.

    “Anyone who raised up was shot,” adds the doctor, then added again that he had photographs of the dead as well as photos of the gunshot wounds of the survivors.

    “Once it grew dark some of them along with this man who spoke with me, with his child and sister-in-law and sister managed to crawl away after it got dark. They crawled to a building and stayed for 8 days. They had one cup of water and gave it to the child. They used cooking oil to put on their wounds which were of course infected, and found some roots and dates to eat.”

    He stops here. His eyes look around the room as cars pass by outside on wet streets…water hissing under their tires.

    He left Fallujah at the end of January, so I ask him what it was like when he left recently.

    “Now maybe 25% of the people have returned, but there are still no doctors. The hatred now of Fallujans against every American is incredible, and you cannot blame them. The humiliation at the checkpoints is only making people even angrier,” he tells me.

    “I’ve been there, and I saw that anyone who even turns their head is threatened and hit by both American and Iraqi soldiers alike…one man did this, and when the Iraqi soldier tried to humiliate him, the man took a gun of a nearby soldier and killed two ING, so then of course he was shot.”

    The doctor tells me they are keeping people in the line for several hours at a time, in addition to the US military making propaganda films of the situation.

    “And I’ve seen them use the media-and on January 2nd at the north checkpoint in the north part of Fallujah, they were giving people $200 per family to return to Fallujah so they can film them in the line…when actually, at that time, nobody was returning to Fallujah,” he says. It reminds me of the story my colleague told me of what he saw in January. At that time a CNN crew was escorted in by the military to film street cleaners that were brought in as props, and soldiers handing out candy to children.

    “You must understand the hatred that has been caused…it has gotten more difficult for Iraqis, including myself, to make the distinction between the American government and the American people,” he tells me.

    His story is like countless others.

    “My cousin was a poor man in Fallujah,” he explains, “He walked from his house to work and back, while living with his wife and five daughters. In July of 2003, American soldiers entered his house and woke them all up. They drug them into the main room of the house, and executed my cousin in front of his family. Then they simply left.”

    He pauses then holds up his hands and asks, “Now, how are these people going to feel about Americans?”

    Posted by Dahr_Jamail at February 8, 2005 08:45 PM
    http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/arc...patches/000196.

  6. #6
    Gold Member EvilMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ourmaninBusan View Post
    You're not imagining things. There have been numerous
    reports from non-American sources that claim the U.S.
    used napalm (or its current equivalent, white phosphorus)
    on Fallujah:

    GS red cross napalm fallujah

    The Daily Kos quotes a British journo:



    Not only does the white phosphorus create third-degree burns
    on human skin, but when you put water on it, it creates
    sulphuric acid, which continues to burn the skin.

    The use of these weapons has been reported by xinhua news
    in China, among others.
    Clarify a few things here.

    White Phos is not like napalm. The most common use of white phos in military ordnance is as smoke rounds from mortars. It is used to provide cover by obscuration. It burns itself out to a safe state in around 20 mins. If you are in the blast area of the initial impact yes you are likely to be hit with WP however it is not an incindary weapon - it is not designed to incinerate a target.

    The FAE bombs ( Fuel Air Explosive ) once again are not designed to incerate. They are used in a NSB ( near surface burst ) capacity that uses a concentrated fuel mixture ( not chemically that different to napalm ) to generate explosive force. However the FAE burns withins seconds as its main effect is the shockwave the explosion creates. Napalm by comparison was designed to coat and area in a fuel and burn that fuel off ( it is an incindary weapon )

    On the Med side. WP, if it comes into contact with human flesh, reacts with air and water and generates phosphoric acid on the skin leading to chemical burning. The treatment for WP is to submerge any affected parts in water ( ie cut of the oxygen ) and then pick off the WP crystals ( they glow in the dark ).

    War and its weapons are nasty stuff but these examples are considered conventional munitions and allowed under the 3rd G. Conv.
    An EM is like a Scientologist - Unhinged and Unbelievable - Now shutup and place your hands on my EM-Meter

  7. #7
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    This is a dirty war on every front. England and the U.S. also used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, just as the U.S. did in the Gulf War. The health consequences are long term and have affected many living in the countries where they were used. U.S. and British soldiers have also suffered. The weapons are illegal under the United Nations, which considers them weapons of mass destruction. Kinda ironic, don't you think?

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0113-01.htm

    http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

    By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

    BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

    DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

    Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

    Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

    The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident.

    According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

    DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

    It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war.

    'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission.

    The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

    In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.

    The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

    A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

    Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.

    'To do so is a crime against humanity.

    'We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU.'

    He called on the US and UK to 'recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation'.

    He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately.

    'It is equivalent to a war crime.'

    Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU contamination.

    The Sunday Herald has previously revealed how the Ministry of Defence had test-fired some 6350 DU rounds into the Solway Firth over more than a decade, from 1989 to 1999.

    30 March 2003

  8. #8
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilMonkey View Post

    On the Med side. WP, if it comes into contact with human flesh, reacts with air and water and generates phosphoric acid on the skin leading to chemical burning. The treatment for WP is to submerge any affected parts in water ( ie cut of the oxygen ) and then pick off the WP crystals ( they glow in the dark ).
    I could've sworn that the reason they were developing these chem
    weapons was to prevent people from diving into rivers to put out
    the flames...which is quite a sinister thing to devote your life to.

    I might be mistaken about the chemical process that occurs, but the
    point of my post (perhaps I was too groggy) was that the U.S. Army,
    denied the use of actual napalm, has concocted a weapon that is
    equally deadly and produces a similar result when dumped on a civilian
    area. And yet, because it is white phosphorus and not jellied gas,
    it is considered conventional, and Bush & co. can have their cake
    and eat it too.

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  9. #9
    Gold Member EvilMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ourmaninBusan View Post
    I could've sworn that the reason they were developing these chem
    weapons was to prevent people from diving into rivers to put out
    the flames...which is quite a sinister thing to devote your life to.

    I might be mistaken about the chemical process that occurs, but the
    point of my post (perhaps I was too groggy) was that the U.S. Army,
    denied the use of actual napalm, has concocted a weapon that is
    equally deadly and produces a similar result when dumped on a civilian
    area. And yet, because it is white phosphorus and not jellied gas,
    it is considered conventional, and Bush & co. can have their cake
    and eat it too.
    It doesnt produce anywhere near the same result as napalm. It is nowhere near as deadly it makes a bright flash on impact spreads some WP and then a big plume of white cloudy smoke.

    WP is used by almost every conventional military force in the world.

    It has been is use since long before napalm was weaponised.
    An EM is like a Scientologist - Unhinged and Unbelievable - Now shutup and place your hands on my EM-Meter

  10. #10
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    ^^What about that quote I used from The Daily Kos about
    Mark 77 Firebombs being used on Fallujah? To repeat:

    The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction
    between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons
    dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs,
    and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

    Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use
    would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably
    similar" to napalm
    but said they caused less environmental damage.
    The journalistic restraint alluded to above is remarkable. They didn't
    ask about a weapon that is so similar to napalm that even the Marines
    who drop it on people call it napalm.

    John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org,
    said:
    *"You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm.
    It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different
    petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has
    used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that
    uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the
    firebombs "napalm".
    FOLLOW-UP:

    I've been watching that RAI documentary, in English.
    Apparently white phosphorus is much more insidious
    than you've been telling us, EvilMonkey.


    It doesn't produce anywhere near the same result as napalm.
    It is nowhere near as deadly it makes a bright flash on impact
    spreads some WP and then a big plume of white cloudy smoke.
    That white powder enters homes through vents and kills them
    toxically.

    Women in Fallujah went into their houses and found white powder
    on everything; the US soldiers told them to wash it off, it was
    white phosphorus. Sure enough, after touching it, the victims
    noticed it was already having a corrosive effect on them by touch.

    Its effects are like Depleted Uranium; it may not be like napalm,
    but it is a chemical weapon and it's not just to make "white powdery
    smoke."

    Any other bullshit you'd like to retract? What's the deal -- do you work
    for the State Department or something? Painting a pretty facade
    over this war and the weapons that the military is using?
    Last edited by ourmaninBusan; November 18th, 2005 at 11:01 PM.

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  11. #11
    Gold Member EvilMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ourmaninBusan View Post
    ^^What about that quote I used from The Daily Kos about
    Mark 77 Firebombs being used on Fallujah? To repeat:



    The journalistic restraint alluded to above is remarkable. They didn't
    ask about a weapon that is so similar to napalm that even the Marines
    who drop it on people call it napalm.



    FOLLOW-UP:

    I've been watching that RAI documentary, in English.
    Apparently white phosphorus is much more insidious
    than you've been telling us, EvilMonkey.




    That white powder enters homes through vents and kills them
    toxically.

    Women in Fallujah went into their houses and found white powder
    on everything; the US soldiers told them to wash it off, it was
    white phosphorus. Sure enough, after touching it, the victims
    noticed it was already having a corrosive effect on them by touch.

    Its effects are like Depleted Uranium; it may not be like napalm,
    but it is a chemical weapon and it's not just to make "white powdery
    smoke."

    Any other bullshit you'd like to retract? What's the deal -- do you work
    for the State Department or something? Painting a pretty facade
    over this war and the weapons that the military is using?
    The WP burns and leaves a residue, an ash. It is safe to touch within 20 mins.

    I dont work for the state dept.

    But I do work with WP.
    An EM is like a Scientologist - Unhinged and Unbelievable - Now shutup and place your hands on my EM-Meter

  12. #12
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    EvilMonkey,

    if you watch that link above (granted it's 27 minutes),
    you might be quite appalled by it.

    http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp

    Go to "Streaming video", English version.

    The stuff, as you must know, is anhydrous; it sucks the water
    out of human tissue, and this causes the burning that kills them.
    The victims' clothes, eerily, were not burnt, but their skin was
    charred black and their eyes were gone.

    If you watch it, you'll understand my alarm.

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  13. #13
    Gold Member EvilMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    Ive seen the effects of this weapons. Ive seen the stuff the press cant show you. Its a sad fact you have to face that man has an incredible capacity to harm its own kind.

    My point is WP isnt as bad as napalm. And its all allowed under the GC.
    An EM is like a Scientologist - Unhinged and Unbelievable - Now shutup and place your hands on my EM-Meter

  14. #14
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! ourmaninBusan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the new casino
    Posts
    4,732

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    I've seen the effects of this weapons. I've seen the stuff the press can't show you. Its a sad fact you have to face that man has an incredible capacity to harm its own kind.

    My point is WP isnt as bad as napalm. And its all allowed under the GC.
    If you watch the RAI piece,
    you'll realize they used both.

    The RAI producer who aired the piece on Italian TV
    just went on CNNi's "International Correspondents."
    The journalist, Becky Anderson, did her best to discredit him
    in two main ways:

    1. She confused the issue by bringing in an American reporter
    and asking him what he saw in Fallujah; but the US reporter
    was there in April 2004 -- the RAI story was about the much
    more serious attack in November 2004
    .

    2. She actually accused him of having bias and an agenda,
    and of using poor attribution. I find that's an intolerable
    attempt to discredit the footage.

    And if the WP is allowed under the Geneva Convention,
    I contend that its use ought to be banned
    , and the US
    military has apparently declined to sign such attempts
    to ban this device--but to argue that,
    I need to do more reading...

    ♫` ∴|| ~∞≠∝ ♫♪ $ -4C

  15. #15
    Gold Member EvilMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Is the U.S.A guilty of war crimes?

    The issue is the wording in GC3.

    Bsically there are four principles to the Laws of Armed Conflict ( I will post them from my laptop tomorrow verbatim ) and they are so flimsy that its an entire segment of officer training here. Learning the GC3 then debating the hell out of it. Its so full of holes and open to interpretation its not funny.

    Basically you can do what you want within the four principles as lomg as it doesnt involve specifically banned means.

    Get out of jail free card is that it only applies to 'comabatants' and it will be easy for the US to label insurgents as non combatants and therefore not protected.
    An EM is like a Scientologist - Unhinged and Unbelievable - Now shutup and place your hands on my EM-Meter

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Bush fears war crimes charges; tries to get immunity
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 2006, 03:24 PM
  2. Supreme Court Blocks Bush War Crimes Trials
    By UndercoverGator in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 30th, 2006, 08:09 PM
  3. Paulie Walnuts from Sopranos: real crimes exposed.
    By buttmunch in forum Television and Movies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 21st, 2006, 07:20 AM
  4. US marines under investigation of war crimes for massacre
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 21st, 2006, 07:11 AM
  5. A list of Chimpy's crimes, mistakes and lies.. it's long..
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th, 2006, 01:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •