Video proof of US using chemical weapons on iraqis

URL removed


intresting stuff.. what do you all think? video is 40 meg download

 

Typical biased reporting. The reporter looked for, and found, specific anti-US propaganda. Real reporters try to remain objective. Unfortunately, those are rare.

I especially found interesting how the reporter/narrator/whatever asked the US soldier if he was asked to fire on children. The soldier replied back, as, yes, if they were armed. Makes sense to me. Whether a 10 year old kills a soldier, or a 50 year old does, the effect is the same.

Civilians who want to remain as such--do not carry arms in a war zone.

With that said, I apologize, but I must remove the link, as it is far too graphic (middle of video) for this website.

 

Seems the documentary was right on the money. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/16/white.phosphorous.ap/index.html

 

chemical weapons that are not illegal to use according to the article.

 

From the article you posted:
"Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the United States is a signatory."

 

As well, my comment about civilians remains. If you are a civilian carrying a weapon, you are an enemy combatant, and no longer a civilian. Age is irrelevant.

 

Yeah, they don't have a constitutionally protected right to bare arms, after all. Oh, and they're being invaded, so they better be darned careful not to be perceived as a threat by their occupiers. If I were them I'd dig a hole and hide in it just to be safe.

 

didn't somebody try that all ready.......didn't help him a bit

 

Well, he's still alive, isn't he? Sure he's imprisoned, but he gets his three squares a day and time to play with his garden or whatever past-times they're letting him indulge in. I'd take that hands down over being faced with the following choice: A) Leave the house, but make sure to take a gun with you because otherwise you're liable to be kidnapped (which is a huge problem there at the moment), in which case you'll be labelled an "insurgent" by your invaders, and shot at. B)Leave the house, don't take your gun, get kidnapped and if no one can pay your ransom, wind up just another uncounted casualty of war. Of course there's always C) Don't leave the house at all, and hope that no clouds of white phosphorous or wayward bombs come your way. Makes the hole look better and better, I think.

 

Civilian casualties, of any age, unfortunately are part of any type of military action. As I saw mentioned in this thread, a civilian with a weapon is in fact to be considered a combatant. This is the way our Marines and soldiers are taught. What seems to have been forgotten, though, with all the mostly biased media reporting only what they deem fit is this: While no WMD`s were discovered, it`s important to reemember the sheer SIZE of that land, and that, coupled with ample time to destroy any evidence of them does not necessarily mean they did not exist. There are a few things that have beeen proven, that have been brought to a halt. First is the government sponsored genocide...such as tribesman gassed and machine gunned. Oh wait...they don`t do that any more? Hmmmm. Second is the government sponsored torture. Oh wait...they don`t do that any more? Hmmmm. Say what you will about the cowardly suicide bombers. I`d like to point out that our presence in Iraq did not cause the terrorist acts that are happening there. Muslim cowar....er....terrorists are just continuing to do what they`ve shown themselves so good at. Murdering innocents on a fairly large scale. Basically doing what they`ve been doing world-wide for what seems like forever. I might point out the `72 Olympics, black september and the innocents that were slaughtered there. Let`s not forget Entebbe, or the Orly bombings, or the pizza joint in Jerusalem. If, by our presence in Iraq, we can do away with one, or two, or more of this particular brand of gutter-slime, I`m all for it. The saddest thing for me, not all of Muslim is like this, just a twisted few. Another sad thing is that people listen to the spin the media tosses out there and just faithfully buys it.

 

I can't help reading all this and biting my tongue. The USA is using chemical weapons - let's not beat around the Bush. We don't need to know who they're using them on, or if they're 'allowed', or whether the combatants are 'armed' - we only need to know chemical weapons are being used and are killing people, innocent people. How do you kill an 'enemy' with complete certainty, from a distance of phosporous-throwing distance, in the dark? I've seen the video, but I knew before that that 'rules' are not engaged. Up to 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been said to have been killed - this, from independent sources. Dropping bombs from the sky isn't accurate enough to pick out people with 'guns' remember.

WMD? Don't make me laugh. Iraqi scientists say they don't exist; the British Government admit they didn't exist; David Kelly, an eminent British scientist, knew they didn't exist and killed himself because he knew the war was wrong. Weapons Inspectors say they didn't exist either, and they confirm they had free access. The Americans are slowly waking up to this fact also. Whether they exist or not, the West is now saying they're there because they wanted to get rid of Saddam. This was NOT in Resolution 1441, which was justification for invading. So we are still there because we lied about it.

Donald Rumsfeld said that there was no link to terrorism in Iraq before the Invasion. There is now though, isn't there? I mean, how many more people do you want to confirm the war is based on lies and innocent people are being killed by Western forces, before you wake up and smell the coffee? Or is it only America that believes this war is just and proper? And let's not forget: no war has ever been declared officially. That makes everything pretty much murder, don't you think?

 

I'll respect your opinions, because many have merit, but
1. no word of the caravans to syria before the attacks?
2. would you describe free access as uninterrupted,
unimpeded freedom to inspect anywhere?
3. what would you consider acceptable loss of civilian life?
4. when is killing not murder?
5. how much money was acceptable for Hussein to imbezzle
and not provide medical assistance to his country?

I give this thread 2 hours...