/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The War in Iraq



Hajar
11-17-2005, 08:14 PM
Assalamu alaykum brothers and sister,

I just wanted to share this documentary about the war in Iraq.
It showes how the Americans use chemical wapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://videos.informationclearinghou...llujah_ING.wmv


WaSalam
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Halima
11-18-2005, 09:54 PM
:sl: May Allah(swt) protect everyone :w:
Reply

S_87
11-19-2005, 03:36 PM
:sl:

ive watched that and Wallahi i feel soooooooooooooooooo La Hawla wa la Quwwata illah billah

May Allah Subhana Wa Ta'aala help those opressed all over the world .

two thing
those killed will inshaAllah be so peaceful now in jannah
one days these oppressors will stand before Allah.
Reply

Halima
11-19-2005, 03:38 PM
:sl: I was just watching the news now and the reporter had just said there was 15 americans that had died and there was a suicide bombing. somewhere in in Iraq.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Hajar
11-19-2005, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
:sl: I was just watching the news now and the reporter had just said there was 15 americans that had died and there was a suicide bombing. somewhere in in Iraq.

:sl:

yeah what do u think sis, these suicide bombings will never end until they get out of Iraq.. although i think when they leave there still be a bigblem between 2 groups Shia and Sunni muslims.

:w:
Reply

Halima
11-20-2005, 05:57 PM
:sl: Sister Hajar

There is already a civil war in Iraq, becuase they are people killing people. They are killing people of their own religion. The damage is done. All that matters to them is 'either you are on MY side or the Kuffar side". Regardless if the Americans leave their coaltion and followers that still remain in Iraq will have an enemy image to that of the insurgents. They will never be looked as a believer or supporter for them. Instead they will be considered as traitors hence not being on their side. Americans are there just to develop a righteous govenrment because right now there is just alot of monarchy. there is no authoritarian governent whatsoever. So with the Americans being there that is what they are trying to build. I am highly against the suicide bombings because it involves killing inncent men, women, and children and that is not what Islam has taught us. Otherwise, we must turn the other cheek.:w:
Reply

Hajar
11-20-2005, 06:14 PM
Americans are there just to develop a righteous govenrment because right now there is just alot of monarchy. there is no authoritarian governent whatsoever. So with the Americans being there that is what they are trying to build.
:sl: sister halima

Well I know that there already is civil war, but before the Americans invade Iraq there was a lil control in the country. Now they come and the whole country is in chaos. I know that the former regime was bad, but the people themselfs had to bring down Sadam Husain, no need for america, who besides is there for their own unlawful reasons.
Like America is there so everything is going to be OK, I dont think so. They just causes more chaos, they seperate the people even more.
And i guess the American are gonna leave soon, because GW Bush hasnt got alot support for the was.. so he has to Hopfully. Adn then what when America leaves, what will they leave behind a authoritarian government...wrong again.. they just leave an even more destructive country behind.

:w:
Reply

Halima
11-20-2005, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
:sl: sister halima

Well I know that there already is civil war, but before the Americans invade Iraq there was a lil control in the country. Now they come and the whole country is in chaos. I know that the former regime was bad, but the people themselfs had to bring down Sadam Husain, no need for america, who besides is there for their own unlawful reasons.
Like America is there so everything is going to be OK, I dont think so. They just causes more chaos, they seperate the people even more.
And i guess the American are gonna leave soon, because GW Bush hasnt got alot support for the was.. so he has to Hopfully. Adn then what when America leaves, what will they leave behind a authoritarian government...wrong again.. they just leave an even more destructive country behind.

:w:

Indeed it is very true what you have said. I feel that since President Bush has started the work, he must finish it. It has been 2-3 years going into the war and there are still suicide bombers all over the place. What if america leaves? Will there still be even more suicide bombing especailly since america has forfilled this problem to flee the country? Take an in-depth look at this day in Iraq. People are killing people. at the beginning of the war it was opposing sides that were viciously fighting each other. Now, it is people killing people. For all of this to stop there has to be some sort of tact or negotiation if they want to stop all of this violence before President Bush leaves office. If they can construct a county with authoritarian rules then why can't they make rules for peace?
Reply

Hajar
11-20-2005, 06:34 PM
If they can construct a county with authoritarian rules then why can't they make rules for peace?
:sl:

hmm i really doubt it, if they make rules for peace that people in Iraq will respect those. Because who is willing to accept rules from sombody who occupied their country.:-\

:w:
Reply

Halima
11-20-2005, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
:sl:

hmm i really doubt it, if they make rules for peace that people in Iraq will respect those. Because who is willing to accept rules from sombody who occupied their country.:-\

:w:
The thing is the Americans appointed an Iraqi President to govern the country. Odds are it will make the Iraqi people to go against each other. what do u think?
Reply

Hajar
11-20-2005, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
The thing is the Americans appointed an Iraqi President to govern the country. Odds are it will make the Iraqi people to go against each other. what do u think?
:sl:

Yeah ofcours they wont accept, this so called democraticly chosen Iraqi President. They will only see him as a fake President who will only be pro America, and controled behind the scene, by America ofcours.

:w:
Reply

umar shahid
11-20-2005, 08:20 PM
these is a callous behaviour of the americans,the oppressors of the owners of peoples wealth.i doubt more if the rules are to stand,it will surely crumbles
Reply

Halima
11-20-2005, 09:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
:sl:

Yeah ofcours they wont accept, this so called democraticly chosen Iraqi President. They will only see him as a fake President who will only be pro America, and controled behind the scene, by America ofcours.

:w:

" If one hangs out with a bad crowd they are a bad crowd" Just to put it in simplest terms. May Allah(swt) help them all. inshAllah.

" La hawla wala quwwate illa lillah"
Reply

Hajar
11-20-2005, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
" If one hangs out with a bad crowd they are a bad crowd" Just to put it in simplest terms. May Allah(swt) help them all. inshAllah.

" La hawla wala quwwate illa lillah"
:sl:

Well said sis!!!

:w:
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-21-2005, 12:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
Assalamu alaykum brothers and sister,

I just wanted to share this documentary about the war in Iraq.
It showes how the Americans use chemical wapons in the battle of Fallujah.

http://videos.informationclearinghou...llujah_ING.wmv


WaSalam

I failed to see how this proved the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else.
Reply

Hajar
11-22-2005, 05:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
I failed to see how this proved the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else.
:sl:
Didnt you saw the dead bodies.. of woman, men, childeren and even animals. Didnt you saw how it looked, like the faces of people where somehow melted and skin was falling of.:-\ Well this kinda result you get when u use chemical weapons!
hmmm maybe take a better look at it bro..cuz its really hapening there.
:w:
Reply

mahdisoldier19
11-22-2005, 08:10 PM
salam

Its obvious america is just trying to control the country, if any fail to realize then surely you have not kept up with the world. Its just another cause in the USA way to control the world and have world domination yet they dont realize there is a group of people called Muslims who submit to the will of Allah swt not to the will of George bush
Reply

ola
11-22-2005, 08:36 PM
slmz ppl
im from iraq and i agree with u guys
its really sad
all we can do is make duaa for pakistan and iraq and all muslims
ok
slmz
xxx
Reply

ola
11-22-2005, 08:37 PM
and all the muslims who work with americans r not true muslims theyre just SO CALLED anywayz may allah guid them to da ryt path
buh bye
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-23-2005, 03:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ola
and all the muslims who work with americans r not true muslims theyre just SO CALLED anywayz may allah guid them to da ryt path
buh bye
Only Allah (swt) can decide who is a "true Muslim" not you.
Reply

S_87
11-24-2005, 02:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
I failed to see how this proved the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else.
:sl:

oh well if u cant see it thats fine-the us admitted it anyway
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-24-2005, 04:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
:sl:

oh well if u cant see it thats fine-the us admitted it anyway
Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon.

It is not illegal for the US to use. The US never admitted to using it as a weapon, they use it to illuminate enemy positions at night.
Reply

~Raindrop~
11-24-2005, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon.

It is not illegal for the US to use. The US never admitted to using it as a weapon, they use it to illuminate enemy positions at night.
WOW!!!!!!!! the US is sooooooooooooooo innocent as we all kno very well....
wassalam
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-24-2005, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
:sl:
Didnt you saw the dead bodies.. of woman, men, childeren and even animals. Didnt you saw how it looked, like the faces of people where somehow melted and skin was falling of.:-\ Well this kinda result you get when u use chemical weapons!
hmmm maybe take a better look at it bro..cuz its really hapening there.
:w:
Are you a chemical weapons expert?

There could be other explanations, not being an expert, it is not correct to come to conclusions without all the appropriate data.
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-24-2005, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aisha
WOW!!!!!!!! the US is sooooooooooooooo innocent as we all kno very well....
wassalam
Without proof it is hard to convict them of this charge.
Reply

~Raindrop~
11-24-2005, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Are you a chemical weapons expert?

There could be other explanations, not being an expert, it is not correct to come to conclusions without all the appropriate data.
are you an expert on how bushs mind works?
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-24-2005, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aisha
are you an expert on how bushs mind works?
When did this become about Bush?
Reply

~Raindrop~
11-24-2005, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
When did this become about Bush?
DUH!!!!! the. iraq. war. is. wat. we. are. talking. about. bush. started. it.
is that nice and clear????? :mad:
Reply

Halima
11-24-2005, 05:01 PM
:sl: People let's remain on topic. InshaAllah :w:
Reply

~Raindrop~
11-24-2005, 05:02 PM
oooops sorry sis :embarrass:
Reply

Hajar
11-25-2005, 10:27 AM
[QUOTE=imaad_udeen;116598]Are you a chemical weapons expert?

There could be other explanations, not being an expert, it is not correct to come to conclusions without all the appropriate data.[/QUOTE


Whoa u are very naïve.

Like they gonna tell the whole world about their use of chemical weapons. And if you compare these side effects on the dead people in Iraq, with the people who died in Vietnam!!! It all have the same result..
I've never saw "normal" weapons having such a reaction on the humanbody...do you? So there still is somfin fishy going on there, if you want to believe it or not
Reply

S_87
11-25-2005, 10:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon.

It is not illegal for the US to use. The US never admitted to using it as a weapon, they use it to illuminate enemy positions at night.
lol why are you bothering denying it?
your own govt admitted it- they used it on people theres pics to prove so. if you dont want to believe it fine thats your choice just dont deny it
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-25-2005, 10:24 PM
[QUOTE=Hajar;117017]
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Are you a chemical weapons expert?

There could be other explanations, not being an expert, it is not correct to come to conclusions without all the appropriate data.[/QUOTE


Whoa u are very naïve.

Like they gonna tell the whole world about their use of chemical weapons. And if you compare these side effects on the dead people in Iraq, with the people who died in Vietnam!!! It all have the same result..
I've never saw "normal" weapons having such a reaction on the humanbody...do you? So there still is somfin fishy going on there, if you want to believe it or not
:w:

The naive one is the one who makes deadly serious charges without hard proof. In this case that would be you, Sister.
:sl:
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-25-2005, 10:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
lol why are you bothering denying it?
your own govt admitted it- they used it on people theres pics to prove so. if you dont want to believe it fine thats your choice just dont deny it
:w:

Noble Sister, please show me where the us admitted to using it on people.

:sl:
Reply

minaz
11-25-2005, 10:27 PM
The naive one is the one who makes deadly serious charges without hard proof
So true, so true
Reply

Mr. Baldy
11-25-2005, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
:w:

Noble Sister, please show me where the us admitted to using it on people.

:sl:
the US has used depleted uranium in the past, and still use it, even if i brought articles for you to read, would you believe me?
Reply

czgibson
11-25-2005, 10:54 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
I failed to see how this proved the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else.
There seems to have been some dodgy use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, whether this particular doc proves anything or not. See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442156.stm

Nothing the US does surprises me any more.

Peace
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-26-2005, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
the US has used depleted uranium in the past, and still use it, even if i brought articles for you to read, would you believe me?
Depleted Uranium is not considered a 'chemical weapon' aqnd I do not believe it is illegal for the US to use it in combat.

I don't deny the US has used it on the battlefield, it is a good weapon to use against armor.
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-26-2005, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


There seems to have been some dodgy use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, whether this particular doc proves anything or not. See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442156.stm

Nothing the US does surprises me any more.

Peace

Ok, let's get one thing clear, the United States did not sign the treaty against the use of Whisky Pete in combat it is not illegal for the United States to use it in battle. We do not clasify it as a chemical weapon.
Reply

Hisbul_Aziz
11-26-2005, 05:22 PM
may allahs hate be upon the people that do that:w: :brother:
Reply

Bittersteel
11-26-2005, 05:25 PM
but it surely a weapon of mass destruction :lol: .So guess we finally found something in Iraq.
Reply

czgibson
11-26-2005, 06:24 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Ok, let's get one thing clear, the United States did not sign the treaty against the use of Whisky Pete in combat it is not illegal for the United States to use it in battle. We do not clasify it as a chemical weapon.
Of course - the US would never sign anything that would impede its belligerent behaviour.

You can be sure that if the Iraqis had used white phosphorus as a weapon the US would be shouting "chemical weapon" loud and clear.

Peace
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-27-2005, 06:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Of course - the US would never sign anything that would impede its belligerent behaviour.

You can be sure that if the Iraqis had used white phosphorus as a weapon the US would be shouting "chemical weapon" loud and clear.

Peace
I don't think so, the US does not consider it a chemical weapon.
Reply

ola
11-27-2005, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Only Allah (swt) can decide who is a "true Muslim" not you.


ok ok not so hard on me man

take a chill pill
well i still think theyre muslims BUT NOT PROPER MUSLIMS ok??


slmz
xx:loving: :peace:
Reply

czgibson
11-27-2005, 08:19 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
I don't think so, the US does not consider it a chemical weapon.
Well, oddly enough, here's a US military document that describes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...31050_91r.html

Of course, here it's not their own use of it that's in question, but Saddam Hussein's.

Peace
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-28-2005, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Well, oddly enough, here's a US military document that describes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...31050_91r.html

Of course, here it's not their own use of it that's in question, but Saddam Hussein's.

Peace
Interesting doc there.

Here is an article from Rueters:

US defends use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq
16 Nov 2005 21:38:46 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds details, paragraphs 2, 7-9, 11-13)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates.

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 that stated the munitions were used against men, women and children in Falluja who were burned to the bone.

"We categorically deny that claim," Venable said.

"It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon," added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman.

Venable said white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention.

However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians.

The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.

White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the U.S. military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon said. They are not considered chemical weapons. The substance ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 86 degrees F (30 C), and its fire can be difficult to extinguish.

'APPROPRIATE OR NOT'

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, questioned whether the U.S. military was using the weapons in a manner consistent with the conventional weapons convention.

"White phosphorous weapons should not be used just like any other conventional weapon," Kimball said.

Kimball called for an independent review of how the United States was using the weapons and possibly an investigation by countries that are parties to the convention "to determine whether their use in Iraq is appropriate or not."

U.S. forces used the white phosphorus during a major offensive launched by Marines in Falluja, about 30 miles (50 km) west of Baghdad, to flush out insurgents. The battle in November of last year involved some of the toughest urban fighting of the 2-1/2-year war.

Venable said that in the Falluja battle, "U.S. forces used white phosphorous both in its classic screening mechanism and ... when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge any other way."

He said the soldiers employed a "shake-and-bake" technique of using white phosphorus shells to flush enemies out of hiding and then use high explosives artillery rounds to kill them.

The Italian documentary showed images of bodies recovered after the Falluja offensive, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

"We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons. And to suggest that U.S. forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would simply be wrong," Whitman said.
Reply

Hajar
11-29-2005, 03:35 PM
yes very nice indeed bro... but let we take a look at this article:

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry

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.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.

And this is a story of a person who has been there, saw it and researched it.
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-29-2005, 04:11 PM
So now the US used "limited nuclear weapons" in Fallujah?

Give me a break.

Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon. The US used no nukes in Fallujah.
Reply

czgibson
11-29-2005, 05:04 PM
Hello Imaad,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
So now the US used "limited nuclear weapons" in Fallujah?

Give me a break.
You'll notice that nowhere in the article is that claim made, it's simply that the possiblity is not excluded.

After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon; they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm; if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.

The lies that have surrounded this war (even before it began) have outraged the world. The US finds itself in a difficult position in Iraq - one which was predicted by millions around the world before the invasion took place.

Whisky Pete is not a chemical weapon.
But it was when Saddam Hussein used it, right?

Peace
Reply

Hajar
11-29-2005, 05:37 PM
After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon; they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm; if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.
Yes i agree with you. Everything that the US says cant be trusted. How can you believe them when they say they dont use chemical weapons or napalm in Iraq, when they lied about the so called "chemical threat" of Iraq. This was just a lame excuse so that they could invade the country

peace
Reply

Noir_deluxe
11-29-2005, 05:46 PM
Hajar, can you please put the link to where you obtained that story? It might make it a little more credible to believe.
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-29-2005, 07:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Hello Imaad,


You'll notice that nowhere in the article is that claim made, it's simply that the possiblity is not excluded.
uh-huh, no evidence that nuclear weapons were used, yet just by mentioning them...

After all, the US have lied about their use of white phosphorus, initially denying that it was used as an incendiary weapon;
I don't know if it was a lie or if one department thought it wasnt used when in reality it was.

they have lied by claiming not to have used napalm;
I must have missed this, but where was napalm used? And then where was the lie?

if they claim not to have used nuclear weapons - well, who can say? As far as Iraq is concerned, I stopped believing whatever the US says a long time ago.
And that is your problem, you are so anti-American that your opinion is pretty much worthless.

The lies that have surrounded this war (even before it began) have outraged the world. The US finds itself in a difficult position in Iraq - one which was predicted by millions around the world before the invasion took place.
What lies?


But it was when Saddam Hussein used it, right?

Peace
WP is illegal to those who signed the convention banning its use. The US is not a party to that treaty. Whether Saddams Iraq was or not I do not know.

The article you linked to earlier speaks of Whisky Pete being used against civilians, as a weapon of terror.

The United States used it in battle against insurgents.

But to you, I bet, there is little difference between Ba'athists and Americans, right?
Reply

czgibson
11-29-2005, 07:35 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
uh-huh, no evidence that nuclear weapons were used, yet just by mentioning them...
No evidence that Saddam had WMD, but that didn't stop Bush & co. invading on that pretext...

I must have missed this, but where was napalm used? And then where was the lie?
Baghdad. See here:

U.S. admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

And that is your problem, you are so anti-American that your opinion is pretty much worthless.
Anti-Bush, yes, very much so. Anti-American, no. Many of my favourite artists, musicians, film-makers and writers are American, so it would be pretty strange if I were anti-American. It's just that when I see an objectionable foreign policy in action, I say so.

What lies?
Have you watched or read the news at all in the last three years?

The two biggies were:

1. Saddam possesses WMD. (Bush may or may not have known this was untrue.)
2. Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (The White House had been informed by the intelligence services that this claim was untrue months before Bush announced it in his State of the Union address.)

WP is illegal to those who signed the convention banning its use. The US is not a party to that treaty. Whether Saddams Iraq was or not I do not know.
The point is that you claimed the US did not regard WP as a chemical weapon; I was simply pointing out that when Saddam used it, they did.

The article you linked to earlier speaks of Whisky Pete being used against civilians, as a weapon of terror.

The United States used it in battle against insurgents.
You mean the BBC article? It mentions civilians having been injured by white phosphorus; it doesn't say that WP was deliberately targeted at them though.

But to you, I bet, there is little difference between Ba'athists and Americans, right?
I'll put that down to emotion.

Peace
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-29-2005, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


No evidence that Saddam had WMD, but that didn't stop Bush & co. invading on that pretext...
No evidence was needed, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, which is why he refused to allow the full inspections which he bound himself to with the Gulf War cease fire and the resulting UNSC resolutions which followed.

Ah, missed that one.

It was used against military targets. The UN ban on them (which the US did not sign, so it doesn't apply to the US anyways) specifically mentions it cannot be used on civilian targets. So what is the problem with the US using it on Iraqi troops in the middle of shooting war?

from article:
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.

Also, I'm not so sure it was a lie. The Pentagon probably did not know it was used. They are not aware of every tactical situation which occurs.

Anti-Bush, yes, very much so. Anti-American, no. Many of my favourite artists, musicians, film-makers and writers are American, so it would be pretty strange if I were anti-American. It's just that when I see an objectionable foreign policy in action, I say so.
You have stated that you wont believe anything the US says, which obvioulsy takes away any objectivity which you mau bring to a discussion on the issue.

Have you watched or read the news at all in the last three years?

The two biggies were:

1. Saddam possesses WMD. (Bush may or may not have known this was untrue.)
2. Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (The White House had been informed by the intelligence services that this claim was untrue months before Bush announced it in his State of the Union address.)
The entire world assumed Saddam had WMD and there was intelligence which led us to believe he was hiding something. Saddams own actions did little to help matters.

Concerning the uranium, the CIA warned the President;s staff that the evidence wasn't solid enough to used in the speech, but never said it was flat out untrue at the time.

The point is that you claimed the US did not regard WP as a chemical weapon; I was simply pointing out that when Saddam used it, they did.
White Phosphorus is not a banned substance unless it is used on civilian targets, which is what Saddam used it for. The US used it on legitimate military targets.

You mean the BBC article? It mentions civilians having been injured by white phosphorus; it doesn't say that WP was deliberately targeted at them though.
When civilians are on a battlefield bad things happen. I would blame the insurgents who often refused to allow some civilians to leave and used them as shields in many situations.

But it seems to me that some refuse to attach any blame for the spiraling violence at the brutal insurgency.
Reply

czgibson
11-29-2005, 11:58 PM
Hello Imaad,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
No evidence was needed, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, which is why he refused to allow the full inspections which he bound himself to with the Gulf War cease fire and the resulting UNSC resolutions which followed.
No evidence was needed? :-\

Was the claim that Saddam's possession of WMD represented a major threat to world peace not the main pretext to justify the invasion?

Surely you need some evidence to back up a claim like that?

Especially before you invade a country, with little domestic or international support for your action?

Did Hans Blix's inspections not go far enough?

(Sorry, I always ask lots of questions when I'm in shock.)

It was used against military targets. The UN ban on them (which the US did not sign, so it doesn't apply to the US anyways) specifically mentions it cannot be used on civilian targets. So what is the problem with the US using it on Iraqi troops in the middle of shooting war?
First of all, the fact that the US didn't sign a treaty does not prove that using napalm is not immoral. The US is famous for not signing international agreements, particularly in recent years - it's precisely that unilateral attitude that really ticks off the rest of the world.

from article:
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.
Can you think of any other country which has used napalm in recent years?

Also, I'm not so sure it was a lie. The Pentagon probably did not know it was used. They are not aware of every tactical situation which occurs.
Well, that's just fine then. The US military should be allowed to obliterate people in horrendous ways without the Pentagon's knowledge - I can't think of a better system!

You have stated that you wont believe anything the US says, which obvioulsy takes away any objectivity which you mau bring to a discussion on the issue.
When it comes to Iraq, yes, I suspend judgment until the facts are clear, rather than trusting official pronouncements. The point is, I and millions (maybe billions?) of other people on this planet vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an utterly reprehensible move. So I'm prejudiced - fair enough.

The entire world assumed Saddam had WMD and there was intelligence which led us to believe he was hiding something. Saddams own actions did little to help matters.
Maybe you and the politicians assumed Saddam had WMD - nobody else did. And guess what? You and they were wrong.

Concerning the uranium, the CIA warned the President;s staff that the evidence wasn't solid enough to used in the speech, but never said it was flat out untrue at the time.
So Bush went ahead with the speech anyway. Why let a lack of evidence get in the way of a good bellicose speech when you can twist the facts to suit your purpose?

White Phosphorus is not a banned substance unless it is used on civilian targets, which is what Saddam used it for. The US used it on legitimate military targets.
The question I've been asking about this is: does the US view it as a chemical weapon or not? The target is not relevant - civilians were hurt in both cases, whether targeted or not. When Saddam used it, the US described it as a chemical weapon; when they themselves used it, they chose not to describe it as such. Is there not a double standard here?

When civilians are on a battlefield bad things happen.
Absolutely. It's a real hassle when your country gets invaded.

I would blame the insurgents who often refused to allow some civilians to leave and used them as shields in many situations.
True, they're using very nasty techniques, but you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. If your opponent is the world's only remaining superpower, would you not use desperate measures?

2. Is this not what everyone opposed to the war suspected would happen? When Bush was gearing up for the invasion, these are the kinds of hypothetical situations that people were facing him with - now they are happening for real, the aggressors have only themselves to blame for the human tragedy they have engendered.

But it seems to me that some refuse to attach any blame for the spiraling violence at the brutal insurgency.
There are some violent imbeciles among the insurgency, with some truly unhelpful ideas as to how the situation should be resolved, but I for one place most of the blame with the aggressors.

Peace
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-30-2005, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Hello Imaad,


No evidence was needed? :-\

Was the claim that Saddam's possession of WMD represented a major threat to world peace not the main pretext to justify the invasion?

Surely you need some evidence to back up a claim like that?

Especially before you invade a country, with little domestic or international support for your action?

Did Hans Blix's inspections not go far enough?

(Sorry, I always ask lots of questions when I'm in shock.)
Did you even read what I wrote about the cease fire and Saddams refusal to abide by it's terms?

First of all, the fact that the US didn't sign a treaty does not prove that using napalm is not immoral.
Ok, napalm is immoral but allowing Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators and murderers since Stalin, to remain in control is somehow not?

The US is famous for not signing international agreements, particularly in recent years - it's precisely that unilateral attitude that really ticks off the rest of the world.
The US is under no obligation to sign international agreements which attempt to bind our hands. Kyoto for instance and others seek to shackle the United States and we have never surrendered will to the world just because they want us too.

Can you think of any other country which has used napalm in recent years?
Does that matter?

Well, that's just fine then. The US military should be allowed to obliterate people in horrendous ways without the Pentagon's knowledge - I can't think of a better system!
So the Pentagon should know whenever any soldier fires a weapon in the middle of a combat operation?

When it comes to Iraq, yes, I suspend judgment until the facts are clear, rather than trusting official pronouncements. The point is, I and millions (maybe billions?) of other people on this planet vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an utterly reprehensible move. So I'm prejudiced - fair enough.
We must agree to disagree. What I find utterly reprehensible is the defacto support all these people were giving for Saddam Hussein.

Maybe you and the politicians assumed Saddam had WMD - nobody else did. And guess what? You and they were wrong.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

McAdams: [snickers] People who, who, who use the ``Bush lied'' argument, it seems to me, are, are just completely heedless of any standards of, of, of telling the truth or making a plausible argument... um, you know, Let's make a list of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction: Russian intelligence, French intelligence, British intelligence, Tony Blair, the CIA, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry. And somehow we're supposed to believe... ah, oh, oh, and the mainstream media, excellent article by Robert Kagan yesterday in the Washington Post where he talks about how the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times but also the Washington Post in the late 1990s and in 2000, before George Bush took office, were hyping the notion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he has a long list of articles,... [see Kagan quoted below],... [UN chief inspector Hans Blix], who clearly told the United Nations that Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s, was under an obligation to have destroyed them, and to explain to his investigators, to document the destruction, but refused to document the destruction. Were supposed to believe that among all these people, George Bush was the only person who was so brilliant, ah, who was so wonderfully perceptive, that he knew Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction when virtually everyone else who was paying attention did. Remember, the disagreement about going to war between say us and the French was not whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was what the appropriate strategy for dealing with that would be. Ah, so, it's, ah simply ahistorical, to make that argument that ``Bush lied'' about weapons of mass destruction. Everybody was making that argument.

So Bush went ahead with the speech anyway. Why let a lack of evidence get in the way of a good bellicose speech when you can twist the facts to suit your purpose?
Again, most people believed it to be true, including the President. I am sure you thought he had them, too, just won;t admit it because it defeats your own purpose of undermining the US effort to liberate Iraq.

The question I've been asking about this is: does the US view it as a chemical weapon or not? The target is not relevant - civilians were hurt in both cases, whether targeted or not. When Saddam used it, the US described it as a chemical weapon; when they themselves used it, they chose not to describe it as such. Is there not a double standard here?
All weapons are 'chemical weapons' if you want to get technical. Gunpowder is a chemical, for instance.

But I digress. WP is not used as weapon 90% of the time. It is used to mark enemy positions and illuminate battlefields at night. When used in Fallujah, it was used to flush out terrorists so that they could be killed with HE artillery rounds.

WP as a weapon is not a very effective weapon. Certainly not as effective as a car bomb at a funeral procession or market place.

Absolutely. It's a real hassle when your country gets invaded.
It also kind of sucks when some blood thirsty tyrant abducts and murders members of your family, even children, and buries them in mass graves. It sucks to have your daughter or sister raped or tortured by said tyrants son.

True, they're using very nasty techniques, but you have to ask yourself two questions:
At least we agree on that, until the 'but...'

1. If your opponent is the world's only remaining superpower, would you not use desperate measures?
Ok, so they can use some of the most descpicable methods they want, out of desperation, they can blow up civilians, saw peoples heads off, etc., but you get up in arms because maybe a couple of people got burned by a little WP?

Hypocrisy.

2. Is this not what everyone opposed to the war suspected would happen? When Bush was gearing up for the invasion, these are the kinds of hypothetical situations that people were facing him with - now they are happening for real, the aggressors have only themselves to blame for the human tragedy they have engendered.
Oh, so everything Al Zarqawi does in Iraq is the fault of the United States?

Sorry bud, but you are dead wrong. Iraq is a free country now with an elected government which has been approved by the United Nations.

There are some violent imbeciles among the insurgency, with some truly unhelpful ideas as to how the situation should be resolved, but I for one place most of the blame with the aggressors.

Peace
Of course you do. You seem to share the same agenda as they do.
Reply

S_87
11-30-2005, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen

Ok, napalm is immoral but allowing Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators and murderers since Stalin, to remain in control is somehow not?
gee mr bush is lovely- he only kills people under the veil of *fighting terrorism* right?


.
Oh, so everything Al Zarqawi does in Iraq is the fault of the United States?
who is zarqawi-where is he and how come he only turns up after the US invaded a country and murdered thousands?

Sorry bud, but you are dead wrong. Iraq is a free country now with an elected government which has been approved by the United Nations
.

err what does america care what the UN think. america is above their rules anyway ...
Reply

imaad_udeen
11-30-2005, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
who is zarqawi-where is he and how come he only turns up after the US invaded a country and murdered thousands?
He was living in Iraq, in hiding, under Saddams regime.

He had been a known terrorist for a long time.

The US did not murder thousands, it was a legal war under US law and international law. Please prove otherwise.

Also, Saddam Hussein was given many chances to leave the country and avert war, again he refused and it cost him and many others.
.
err what does america care what the UN think. america is above their rules anyway ...
Please prove that as well. The United States took its case to the UNSC before hostilities commenced and got backing for the war, even though it was not needed for the US to invade Iraq anyways.
Reply

Hajar
12-01-2005, 04:05 PM
The US did not murder thousands, it was a legal war under US law and international law. Please prove otherwise.
The war isnt legal at all. The US invaded Iraq on fals assumptions...If this wasnt happen then they wouldnt get aproval to invade.
But they GW. Bush already knew that there wasnt such things happening there, it was just a way for him to get into war. And what has US law to do with this.... international Ok.. but the way the war is going makes me sick.

I just have to say one word "Abu Ghraib". Like u know what happend there.. hmm i guess is that allowed under US law.

Here read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...agouranis.html
Reply

imaad_udeen
12-01-2005, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hajar
The war isnt legal at all. The US invaded Iraq on fals assumptions...If this wasnt happen then they wouldnt get aproval to invade.
But they GW. Bush already knew that there wasnt such things happening there, it was just a way for him to get into war. And what has US law to do with this.... international Ok.. but the way the war is going makes me sick.
The United States had a cease fire agreement with Iraq, seperate from the UN, which gave the US a Casus belli for the war with Iraq.

There is nothing in international law which prohibited the United States from making war on Saddam's government. If you can find something, then please do.

I just have to say one word "Abu Ghraib". Like u know what happend there.. hmm i guess is that allowed under US law.
Those suspected of torture or mistreatment of prisoners have been charged and either convicted in military court or awaiting trial. The woman in charge of the prison was demoted to colonel, effectively ending her career.

Glad you posted this, it's a bunch of crap. Starting with this little nugget of wisdom:

You know, it was Saddam's torture chamber and execution chamber. And it's where thousands of Shi'a died after the uprising. So you know, it's (Abu Ghraib) sort of equivalent of Auschwitz for the Arab people. …

Auschwitz? Come on, millions of Jews were murdered and tortured in Auschwitz. The comparison would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting.

No disrespect for the people Saddam murdered, they are the main reason I support this war. But Abu Ghraib is not Auschwitz.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 108
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 11:54 PM
  2. Replies: 71
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 06:26 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2006, 03:23 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2006, 03:37 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 12:01 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!