Cancer Rate in Fallujah Worse than Hiroshima

Poccington

Poccington wrote: »

Once again, those lads were conducting a food delivery.

If you feel that was enough justification for them to have a grenade thrown in their window and their vehicle hit with small arms fire before being dragged out of the vehicle, beaten and then set ablaze with two of them being hung from a bridge over the Euphrates, well then that's rather worrying.

I obviously don't think that's justification for what happened.. The fact that they're mercenaries from all around the world fighting a war that is not theirs while commiting heinious crimes without reprimand is justification for it. They get paid to shoot innocent civilians and get away with it alot easier than the army do.
I'm glad they got burned.. They're the shítest form of human being on earth.. They ruin lives and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Where's your justification for 17 people dying at America's hands in the lead up to it?

And what news source said food delivery? Blackwater are in the business of defending/killing over that side of the world. You might be thinking of their presence after Hurricane Katrina.

biko

About the Blackwater guys killed in Fallujah, apparently there wasn't really food involved?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-10-fallujah-deaths_n.htm
The lawsuit alleges that Blackwater sent Jerry Zovko, Scott Helvenston, Michael Teague and Wesley Batalona on a job with inadequate equipment and protection. The men were killed while escorting a convoy of three empty trucks to pick up kitchen equipment for a European food company.

Anyway, that's what Blackwater did, they escorted VIPs, convoys etc.

Poccington

Deleted User wrote: »

I obviously don't think that's justification for what happened.. The fact that they're mercenaries from all around the world fighting a war that is not theirs while commiting heinious crimes without reprimand is justification for it. They get paid to shoot innocent civilians and get away with it alot easier than the army do.
I'm glad they got burned.. They're the shítest form of human being on earth.. They ruin lives and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Where's your justification for 17 people dying at America's hands in the lead up to it?

And what news source said food delivery? Blackwater are in the business of defending/killing over that side of the world. You might be thinking of their presence after Hurricane Katrina.

My apologies, they were conducting a delivery for food caterers.

Do you have any proof that the 4 men that died on that day ruined any lives or murdered any civilians while they were in Iraq? Or is it a case of once they're Blackwater they deserve to die?

When did I attempt to justify the death of 17 civilians?

gizmo

My name is URL wrote: »

Wikipedia is sourced, would it kill you to look at the citations rather than regurgitate that insult every time a thread like this comes up?

The chunk of Wikipedia copy in question has very little to do with the original article and it's citations merely back up some of the points made within it. My point was why bother quoting it at all? I'd also note that just because certain aspects of an article can be backed up, doesn't mean it can't be completely twisted into a particular viewpoint.

I've also never called anyone in here a nutjob as, despite my personal feelings, I know I'd be banned.

The article in question is firmly entrenched in CT territory anyway, **** like this for instance...

The assault on Fallujah, a city located 43 miles west of Baghdad, was one
of the most horrific war crimes of our time. After the population resisted
the US-led occupation of Iraq—a war of neo-colonial plunder launched on
the basis of lies—Washington determined to make an example of the largely
Sunni city. This is called “exemplary” or “collective” punishment and is,
according to the laws of war, illegal.

Not to mention the poster delighting in the death of the Blackwater employees. Nice one, give out about the Americans and then clap your hands like a seal when people are butchered. Not that I particular like the idea of PMCs in warzones but to wish that kind of death on someone who could be completely innocent is sick.

And yes Terry, if they attack their own citizens and people who are trying to help rebuild their country by joining the local and national armed forces (police/army) I would call them insurgents. Not to mention the religious radicals who are still using the opportunity to bomb the **** out of each other without caring who gets caught in the crossfire. But again, I guess they're patriots rather than insurgents too...

Poccington

Terry wrote: »

That term really pisses me off.
You cannot call the victims of an invasion "Insurgents".
If Ireland was invaded in the morning, and you fought against the invading force, would you refer to yourself as an insurgent? I think not.

They carry out attacks on the Iraqi police, Iraqi army and the Iraqi population.

What else would I call them?

sponsoredwalk

biko wrote: »

AH -> CT

I hope to "god" that one day Dick and George will stand trial for the war crimes the US committed in the ME.

I put this in AH because it's news that barely anyone has heard about,
I've only found it on politics.ie, indymedia etc...
I guess nobody hears about news because people like yourself
pre-filter real news & judge it's "conspiracy-ness" & feel it's better we
weren't exposed to anything as a helpless Irish population, that's a
shame tbh.


The major irish media didn't care to post this - well I can't find it -
and seeing as people are so interested in the wikileaks threads
this is very close to that topic...

Also, when people complain about the news being atrocious well they
can't really complain when they read stories like this...

My name is URL wrote: »

Wikipedia is sourced, would it kill you to look at the citations rather than regurgitate that insult every time a thread like this comes up?

The second poster who's knocked wikipedia;

a) If there's an error in the wikipedia post, prove it wrong & show us
there was an inconsistency.

b) I didn't use wikipedia as my main source, I used it to back up some
of the claims in the original article & to give a bit of background.

c) I think wikipedia can be better than some random article off the
net most times because wikipedia usually has about 50 to 100 sources
if you've ever noticed - it's hard to get things wrong when there's
50 to 100 sources backing up the claims @ various points throughout
an article...

Furthermore, for all of the mathematics I've checked on wikipedia
it is usually sourced to the top book, i.e. Walter Rudin, &
most of the physics is traced to the behemoth Goldstein so
you're knocking a lot when you knock wikipedia.

I think the skepticism is misplaced, throwing out the baby with the
bathwater...

sponsoredwalk

"The United States occupation of Fallujah began in April 2003, one month
following the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. In April 2003 US forces
opened fire on a group of unarmed demonstrators, claiming they were fired
at. Fallujah's mayor, Taha Bedaiwi al-Alwani, said that two people were
killed and 14 wounded.[1] Iraqi resistance fighters were able to claim the
city a year later, before they were ousted by a siege and two re-invasions
by US forces. These events caused widespread destruction and a
humanitarian crisis in the city and surrounding areas. The city is now
largely ruined, with 60% of buildings damaged or destroyed, and the
population at 30%-50% of pre-war levels.[2]


A film Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre alleges that the United States army
had committed war crimes during its attacks on Fallujah,[3] in particular by
its use of chemical weaponsI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I such as white phosphorus,
which the U.S. had admitted to.[4] Both international conventions
and the US Department of Defense consider the use of white
phosphorus against any human being as illegal.[5]"

link

We have to remember that Fallujah was one of the only cities
to defy Saddam Hussein's mandate's & they refused to pray
for him in prayers leading to many kidnapped etc...

Fallujah's people were on their side until they marched in and took over
the the "vacated Ba'ath Party headquarters, a local school house, and the
Ba'ath party resort just outside town (Dreamland)— the US bases inside
the town erased some goodwill, especially when many in the city had been
hoping the US Army would stay outside of the relatively calm city."

So, if you have any doubts about U.S. soldiers criminal activities in
Fallujah, read on, it's confusing @ this stage;
"The Fallujah killings of April 2003 began when soldiers from the United
States 1st Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division
fired into a crowd of Iraqi civilians who were protesting their presence at a
school within the city of Fallujah. The soldiers claimed they were receiving
fire from the crowd. The civilians said they were shot at first.


On the evening of April 28, 2003, several hundred civilians ignored a curfew
imposed on them by the United States Armed Forces. They proceeded to
marched through the streets of Fallujah, past the soldiers positioned in the Ba'ath party headquarters.



They wished to protest outside a local school
about the United States military presence within. A U.S. Army
Psychological Operations team attempted to force the civilians to disperse
with announcements, but the team failed in this attempt. According to
locals, at this point the United States soldiers fired upon the unarmed
crowd, killing 17 and wounding more than 70 of the protesters. The U.S.
suffered no casualties from the incident.[1]

According to the soldiers on the ground, the 82nd Airborne soldiers
inside the school responded to "effective fire" from inside the protesting crowd.
Two days later, on April 30, the 82d Airborne was replaced in the city by
2nd Troop (Fox) / U.S. 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment.

The 3d Cavalry was significantly smaller in number and chose not to
occupy the same schoolhouse where the shooting had occurred
two days earlier.

However, on the same day three more unarmed civilians were killed by
United States soldiers during a daytime protest in front of the Ba'ath party
headquarters and mayor's office (which are adjacent to one another;
known collectively to US forces as FOB Laurie). Once again, the US
suffered no casualties from the incident but some US soldiers were hurt in
a retaliatory grenade attack on the Ba'ath headquarters later that
evening.[2] [3]

The incident is frequently cited and compared to other similar incidents.
Foreign Policy compared Fallujah to Israel's Gaza flotilla raid of 2010 during
which Israeli naval commandos used "lethal force" to kill nine people.[4]"

So, in this article the claim is that the U.S. said they were fired on
only after the first shootings & in the other article the the U.S. soldiers
claimed after both incidents they were fired on first.

I don't know, they imposed a curfew, took over their school & killed
quite a lot of people, escalated the violence & used basically
nuclear weapons on civilians & "insurgents" in the previously
sympathetic city, what to think...

My name is Url was defending Wikipedia if you read back.. And Biko has already said that he thinks he shouldn't have put it here.

Anyways, back to the conversation..

humanji

I've bounced this back to AH.

WakeUp

gizmo wrote: »

I've also never called anyone in here a nutjob as, despite my personal feelings, I know I'd be banned.

Yes you did, you actually went one further and insulted the entire forum, here it is in black and white very mature of you....

gizmo wrote: »

Also, since when did Wikipedia become an acceptable source to quote? I know you CT nuts usually use the whole "I'M NOT TELLING YOU MY SOURCES, GO LOOK THEM UP FOR YOURSELF!!" but isn't this taking the piss a little?

gizmo wrote: »

The article in question is firmly entrenched in CT territory anyway, **** like this for instance...

That would be a personal opinion mine would be different.

gizmo wrote: »

Not to mention the poster delighting in the death of the Blackwater employees. Nice one, give out about the Americans and then clap your hands like a seal when people are butchered. Not that I particular like the idea of PMCs in warzones but to wish that kind of death on someone who could be completely innocent is sick.

Nobody should delight in the death of another human but the fact of the matter is that the US/British invasion of Iraq was based on lies, greed and a thirst for blood, nothing new there is there really. They should not be in Iraq a lot of what is going on over there would not be happening if they didnt lie their way in there in the first place.

gizmo wrote: »

And yes Terry, if they attack their own citizens and people who are trying to help rebuild their country by joining the local and national armed forces (police/army) I would call them insurgents. Not to mention the religious radicals who are still using the opportunity to bomb the **** out of each other without caring who gets caught in the crossfire. But again, I guess they're patriots rather than insurgents too...

The US and British should not be in Iraq the invasion was based on lies.George Bush and Tony Blair are war criminals and history will judge them as such, take it easy.

gizmo

WakeUp wrote: »

Yes you did, you actually went one further and insulted the entire forum, here it is in black and white very mature of you....

Actually I posted that reply when the thread was in AH. The latter comment was not an attack on the forum at all but those who post ridiculous suppositions without any fact and then when questioned about their sources, reply with the usual line of "look for it yourself". It's pretty strange behaviour from a group of people who have supposedly found the "truth" behind the "lies" we're constantly told and then refuse to share it with the rest of us.

WakeUp wrote: »

That would be a personal opinion mine would be different.

Cool, you're more than entitled to it. However I'll continue to believe that anyone who actually buys into the whole lizard people argument is just that, a complete nut-job.

WakeUp wrote: »

Nobody should delight in the death of another human but the fact of the matter is that the US/British invasion of Iraq was based on lies, greed and a thirst for blood, nothing new there is there really. They should not be in Iraq a lot of what is going on over there would not be happening if they didnt lie their way in there in the first place.

Entirely besides the point. The issue here is that a poster expressed delight over the horrific fate of those individuals despite knowing nothing more than the company they work for.

You also didn't read the part I quoted. Terry took exception to the insurgents being called by this term. I pointed out that any group of people who kill their own citizens, whether they are innocent bystanders, those with a desire to help their country by joining the police or those of another religion, can be named nothing else.

sponsoredwalk

gizmo wrote: »

You also didn't read the part I quoted. Terry took exception to the insurgents being called by this term. I pointed out that any group of people who kill their own citizens, whether they are innocent bystanders, those with a desire to help their country by joining the police or those of another religion, can be named nothing else.

So by this logic the U.S. are insurgents too,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/14/friendly_fire

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/15/friendly_fire

gizmo

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So by this logic the U.S. are insurgents too,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/14/friendly_fire

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/15/friendly_fire

Well no, not quite. In both of those cases there was legitimate friendly fire which was subsequently covered up for PR purposes. They did not, however, intend to kill their own troops. In the insurgents cases the attacks on the above people were planned and they intended to kill as many people as possible.

WakeUp

gizmo wrote: »

Actually I posted that reply when the thread was in AH. The latter comment was not an attack on the forum at all but those who post ridiculous suppositions without any fact and then when questioned about their sources, reply with the usual line of "look for it yourself". It's pretty strange behaviour from a group of people who have supposedly found the "truth" behind the "lies" we're constantly told and then refuse to share it with the rest of us.


Cool, you're more than entitled to it. However I'll continue to believe that anyone who actually buys into the whole lizard people argument is just that, a complete nut-job.


Entirely besides the point. The issue here is that a poster expressed delight over the horrific fate of those individuals despite knowing nothing more than the company they work for.

You also didn't read the part I quoted. Terry took exception to the insurgents being called by this term. I pointed out that any group of people who kill their own citizens, whether they are innocent bystanders, those with a desire to help their country by joining the police or those of another religion, can be named nothing else.

I dont want to derail the thread so Im going to reply to your points in general and leave it at that. I think you will find that very few believe in the whole "lizard" theory myself included, its an easy topic to throw back at people and in the same breath lable anyone who talks of CT's as "nuts" like you belive. It is weak and narrow minded.

In my opinion anything that happens in Iraq post 2003 has it roots in the illegal US/British invasion of that same year. It should never of have happened but as we all know and has been proven time and time again the US and British are skilled in the art of the lie - think Colin Powell, UN Feb 5th 2003, hats off to them nobody does it better. When they went into that country they started a chain reaction that no matter what anyone says, is their responsibility and ultimately their fault. Like I pointed out in my last post as far as Im concerned Bush & Blair are war criminals and responsible for what is happening in Iraq and history will judge it this way because its the truth. Take it easy and enjoy your discussion it is an important topic and deserves a serious debate.

Terry

Poccington wrote: »

They carry out attacks on the Iraqi police, Iraqi army and the Iraqi population.

What else would I call them?

What you have here is essentially a form of civil war, so I'd call them patriots. Maybe rebels. Depends which side of the fence you're on.
They are fighting against the invaders and those they see as collaborators.
They may be misguided, but this is what they believe in. When you see your friends and family being blown to bits by an invading army, and then see other friends and neighbours joining up with the invaders, you're going to be a bit pissed off.

Don't get me wrong. I don't condone the attacks on civilians or the police, but when you're at war, soldiers are legitimate targets.
Picture yourself in their shoes, and think about how you would feel in their situation.

Also, civil wars tend to happen when invaders/occupiers leave a country.

Nodin

Poccington wrote: »

Once again, those lads were conducting a food delivery. .

...on that day. They were, however, associated with the US occupation and facilitated it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/politics/washingtonpost/main5965345.shtml?tag=stack
They were also members of an organisation that was associated with firing with little or no provocation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN01326086
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202456.html?hpid=topnews

You'll find that - in a war - the idea of "I'm only guarding the truck today" wouldn't generally be taken as ruling a target out.

Terry

Nodin wrote: »

You'll find that - in a war - the idea of "I'm only guarding the truck today" wouldn't generally be taken as ruling a target out.

That's just it.
You can say that it was bad form and whatever, but it's ****ing war.
You can cite the rules of engagement, but they tend to go out the window when you have invaded a country and pissed off the locals.

The simple fact of the matter is that when you invade a country, if you expect the locals to bend over and take it up the arse, you are going to be in for quite a shock. Possibly some awe too.

sponsoredwalk

I think the main corollary of the questions raised by the original post on
the cancer levels is why the hell the army are resorting to such
ruthless methods of attack that have such horribly drastic reprocussions
for the civilians of the country. Fallujah is a real classic example because
the U.S. had clearly created & nurtured the opposition against them because
they managed to turn a whole town that was sympathetic to them
originally, a town that actually had defied Saddam Hussein resulting in
civilians being kidnpped etc... & turned it into a ring of depleted uranium
& white phosphorous.

They were allowing women & children out @ the beginning, after all of the
crap we've discussed & tried to contain men of army-age inside the walls -
just like Srebrenica - and then some armies had explicit orders to
shoot to kill after dark. Check it out (not on wikipedia of you want ).

Lots of families stayed in the city refusing to be evacuated by the
invaders, the army explicitly went to the hospitals & dismantled all
hopes of saving lives - and getting a body count.
To the poster skeptical of this claim just do your bloody homework,
this is a standard tactic. Even look at how they reacted when the
people who conducted the study I'd posted - the Iraq government
spread misinformation & propaganda in order to hide the truth - i.e.
curb the bad P.R. as you so horrendously put it :mad:

Using the most horrendous weaponry on people is outrageuos,
we're supposed to be "the good guys" but in reality we've resorted
to monstrous methods & depravity beyond belief that really &
seriously affects civilian lives.

Look at the pictures of the child born in Fallujah with 2 heads as a
result of the genetic deformities & you'll see what I'm talking about...

gizmo

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont want to derail the thread so Im going to reply to your points in general and leave it at that. I think you will find that very few believe in the whole "lizard" theory myself included, its an easy topic to throw back at people and in the same breath lable anyone who talks of CT's as "nuts" like you belive. It is weak and narrow minded.

Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few of these people on our CT forum and it is that caliber of CT, let's say enthusiast, that I would label as nuts. If you don't fall into that category then good for you but calling me "weak" and "narrow minded" for calling some these insane theories out is amusing to say the least.

Anyway, back to the thread...

WakeUp wrote: »

In my opinion anything that happens in Iraq post 2003 has it roots in the illegal US/British invasion of that same year. It should never of have happened but as we all know and has been proven time and time again the US and British are skilled in the art of the lie - think Colin Powell, UN Feb 5th 2003, hats off to them nobody does it better. When they went into that country they started a chain reaction that no matter what anyone says, is their responsibility and ultimately their fault. Like I pointed out in my last post as far as Im concerned Bush & Blair are war criminals and responsible for what is happening in Iraq and history will judge it this way because its the truth. Take it easy and enjoy your discussion it is an important topic and deserves a serious debate.

Well again all of that depends on a) whether you think that the Iraqi war was actually illegal and b) despite it's legality in the eyes of the international community, were it's objectives in any way noble. In both cases I think there is space for debate however inflammatory articles like those posted in this thread do nothing to foster this debate.

Terry wrote: »

What you have here is essentially a form of civil war, so I'd call them patriots. Maybe rebels. Depends which side of the fence you're on.
They are fighting against the invaders and those they see as collaborators.
They may be misguided, but this is what they believe in. When you see your friends and family being blown to bits by an invading army, and then see other friends and neighbours joining up with the invaders, you're going to be a bit pissed off.

And what about the Sunni radicals using the opportunity to blow the **** out of the Shi'a and vice versa? Are those people patriots too and can that behavior be justified?

sponsoredwalk

My name is URL wrote: »

Wikipedia is sourced, would it kill you to look at the citations rather than regurgitate that insult every time a thread like this comes up?

Oh f*ck, sorry - I read you wrong there in my earlier response - my bad.
Sorry man seriously :pac:

I'll just leave it there for the future so I can copy-paste next time
someone does this because it's something people will try

Kev_ps3

Shocking stuff. Them invading Americans really are a cancer on humanity.

Nodin

Terry wrote: »

That's just it.
You can say that it was bad form and whatever, but it's ****ing war.
You can cite the rules of engagement, but they tend to go out the window when you have invaded a country and pissed off the locals.

The simple fact of the matter is that when you invade a country, if you expect the locals to bend over and take it up the arse, you are going to be in for quite a shock. Possibly some awe too.

Indeed, though it has to be said killing them would have been perfectly within the rules of engagement of the US military or any other, for that matter. The fact that the bodies were treated in such a manner afterwards might be unsavoury, but that rather distracts from the fact that they were by any standard valid targets.

Here's another instance where they bothered to burn and mutilate bodies, though its quite far down in the article.....it's important to read the full thing to get the context.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/war-crimes-us-soldiers-iraq

gizmo

Nodin wrote: »

Here's another instance where they bothered to burn and mutilate bodies, though its quite far down in the article.....it's important to read the full thing to get the context.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/war-crimes-us-soldiers-iraq

Absolutely horrific story but surely you're not trying to label the entire US Military as being as sick as that bastard?

Sidenote, nice to see both the Military and domestic justice system going after them so vigorously.

storm2811

I knew about the depleted uranium situation but only from a song,then looked into it further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RfNwdc6Lq4

Just listen to the radio interview parts,they're really interesting.
At one point he says something like "When women have given birth in the hospital,they don't ask if it's a boy or a girl,they ask is it normal."


Didn't the bbc have something on the news a few months back about the amount of children being born with deformities over there?
It was shocking,I thought everyone knew about it!

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

Absolutely horrific story but surely you're not trying to label the entire US Military as being as sick as that bastard?

'bastards' and no. I'm saying things happen for a reason. Its not nessecarily one you or I might agree with, or a good one, but there's usually one nonetheless.

Cookie_Monster

Fallujah

thats the Star Wars planet right?

All those wierd plants and blaster fire bound to cause all sorts of nasty cancers

Manic Moran

Third Geneva Protocol bans the use of incendiaries in civilian areas.
It also bans the use of fragmentation, cluster or .50 calibre weapons for use against civilians OR combatants.
Again...doesn't stop the Americans.

Dear God almighty, the amount of inaccuracy in this post (and the thread at large) boggles belief. In fairness, a lot of media and websites are just parroting 'what they know to be true', even in the US Army the thought that you can't shoot .50 cal at personnel (so you aim at the equipment like helmets, vests, etc) just won't die.

Start quoting chapter and verse from the regulations, please, when making claims of unlawfulness.

You will note that:
1) It is legal to use WP as an incendiary weapon to burn people to death. Kindof poor PR, but legal. It is also legal to use it to start fires and such like, particularly for equipment. Although it is a supreme obscurant and illuminant, and they are the predominant uses for the munition, its use is not legally confined to those roles.
2) There is no blanket prohibition on the use of WP (or any other incendiary weapon) delivered by ground systems such as artillery, tanks, flamethrowers or hand grenades within a city or other such urban area. The only such blanket prohibition exists as regards air-delivered incendiaries. After Dresden and Tokyo they decided that firebombing by bomber aircraft was going a little too far. If used, the system must be directed against a military target and be reasonably proportionate. A photo of WP in a city is not automatically evidence of unlawful activity.
3) The intentional use of any kind of weapon, fragmentation, cluster, .50 cal, wet noodles or anything else you can think of against civilians is generally frowned upon. There is no prohibition on the use of any of those above-listed weapons against combatant personnel or equipment. However, as a concession to the Hague declaration, as a rule of thumb no exploding ammunition of less than 20mm is issued.

As regards DU ammunition, Fallujah was as close to a conventional infantry fight as you're going to find. The insurgents did not have armour, and the city was generally considered to be under dominant enemy control. DU munitions have two purposes: Destroying heavy armour like tanks, or in areas where high precision in areas known to hold civilians in close proximity is required. Neither situation applied in this case, so there was little requirement for the US forces to use DU in the first place.

The UN/WHO official position on DU is that studies in areas of its use such as Kosovo have not found any hazards of note.

NTM

sponsoredwalk

storm2811 wrote: »

I knew about the depleted uranium situation but only from a song,then looked into it further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RfNwdc6Lq4

Just listen to the radio interview parts,they're really interesting.
At one point he says something like "When women have given birth in the hospital,they don't ask if it's a boy or a girl,they ask is it normal."

The first 9 songs on this Anti-Flag album
are amazing, I'm not too big on the rest of their music tbh.

storm2811

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The first 9 songs on this Anti-Flag album
are amazing, I'm not too big on the rest of their music tbh.

Yeah great album alright I'll agree.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Dear God almighty, the amount of inaccuracy in this post (and the thread at large) boggles belief. In fairness, a lot of media and websites are just parroting 'what they know to be true', even in the US Army the thought that you can't shoot .50 cal at personnel (so you aim at the equipment like helmets, vests, etc) just won't die.

Start quoting chapter and verse from the regulations, please, when making claims of unlawfulness.

You will note that:
1) It is legal to use WP as an incendiary weapon to burn people to death. Kindof poor PR, but legal. It is also legal to use it to start fires and such like, particularly for equipment. Although it is a supreme obscurant and illuminant, and they are the predominant uses for the munition, its use is not legally confined to those roles.
2) There is no blanket prohibition on the use of WP (or any other incendiary weapon) delivered by ground systems such as artillery, tanks, flamethrowers or hand grenades within a city or other such urban area. The only such blanket prohibition exists as regards air-delivered incendiaries. After Dresden and Tokyo they decided that firebombing by bomber aircraft was going a little too far. If used, the system must be directed against a military target and be reasonably proportionate. A photo of WP in a city is not automatically evidence of unlawful activity.
3) The intentional use of any kind of weapon, fragmentation, cluster, .50 cal, wet noodles or anything else you can think of against civilians is generally frowned upon. There is no prohibition on the use of any of those above-listed weapons against combatant personnel or equipment. However, as a concession to the Hague declaration, as a rule of thumb no exploding ammunition of less than 20mm is issued.

As regards DU ammunition, Fallujah was as close to a conventional infantry fight as you're going to find. The insurgents did not have armour, and the city was generally considered to be under dominant enemy control. DU munitions have two purposes: Destroying heavy armour like tanks, or in areas where high precision in areas known to hold civilians in close proximity is required. Neither situation applied in this case, so there was little requirement for the US forces to use DU in the first place.

The UN/WHO official position on DU is that studies in areas of its use such as Kosovo have not found any hazards of note.

NTM

Hurray for legal ways of killing people.
Your army must be so proud of their ability to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a legal way.

The insurgents did not have armour, and the city was generally considered to be under dominant enemy control.

This is a facepalm moment if there ever was one.
How do you not realise that your army is the enemy?
Your army was the invading force. The so called "insurgents" are fighting against an invading army.

I'll pose the same scenario to you as I did to Poccington.
If the U.S. was invaded by, let's say China (because you may have WMD's or you nuked Tehran or something), in the morning, then a year down the line the Chinese still have control.
They use your local primary school as a military base.
You go out with the locals and protest against this move, and then they kill 17 of the protestors.
What would you do?

Let's say you decided to fight back. Would you refer to yourself as an insurgent?
If not, what would you refer to yourself as?
Remember that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already been killed during this invasion.