US forces 'used chemical weapons in Fallujah'

It's as jsutified as flying airplanes into buildings was.

And I think you still owe my wife an apology for calling her stupid...
 
catocom said:
I read the whole thing...
Here's another part that's a dead give away man...


If it is true, there will be an investigation, and it would in-fact be horrendous.
I just don't believe whatever some terrorist want to put up on a website,
and if I were a responsible reporter/new org, I surly wouldn't put it up as fact.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't base the story on what the insurgent websites say. If it did, I wouldn't have posted it.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It's as jsutified as flying airplanes into buildings was.

And I think you still owe my wife an apology for calling her stupid...
Click to expand...

Tell me, how many people from Fallujah (or Iraq) flew planes into buildings?
 
Bobby Hogg said:
The article doesn't base the story on what the insurgent websites say. If it did, I wouldn't have posted it.
Click to expand...
I just posted a quote from it that says they quoted insurgents. What do you think it was based on?
 
Bobby Hogg said:
An Italian documentary, featuring US military sources, photographic evidence and people living in Fallujah.
Click to expand...
A documentary is now necessarily news, or even true.
It said military sources, but gave no names. (makes it look untrue to me)
Photographs can be doctored..... annnd
The I-witness said he say the "light" (basically) from the flairs, and then
later saw what he called strange sores/burns. That does mean the 2 were related.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
An Italian documentary, featuring US military sources, photographic evidence and people living in Fallujah.
Click to expand...

And quoting insurgents as witnesses...

I also saw the so-called photographic evidence claiming that 1/3 of the city was burned. It sure looks like a shadow from a cloud to me...There was burning from our bombs, to be fair, but it was limited to 3 or 4 buildings in a non-residential zone...at least according to the pictures I saw...taken a good 5 days later.
 
catocom said:
A documentary is now necessarily news, or even true.
It said military sources, but gave no names. (makes it look untrue to me)
Photographs can be doctored..... annnd
The I-witness said he say the "light" (basically) from the flairs, and then
later saw what he called strange sores/burns. That does mean the 2 were related.
Click to expand...

Military sources are unlikely to give their names when divulging such information.
 
Gato_Solo said:
And quoting insurgents as witnesses...

I also saw the so-called photographic evidence claiming that 1/3 of the city was burned. It sure looks like a shadow from a cloud to me...There was burning from our bombs, to be fair, but it was limited to 3 or 4 buildings in a non-residential zone...at least according to the pictures I saw...taken a good 5 days later.
Click to expand...

And also US soldiers.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Military sources are unlikely to give their names when divulging such information.
Click to expand...
I do agree with that, but it still doesn't mean it's anymore valid, or that
they were in-fact even military. :shrug:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
And I think you still owe my wife an apology for calling her stupid...
Click to expand...

I was wondering what this was about, then I realised.

I was actually referring to Winky with that comment. I will never apologise for calling Winky stupid.
 
catocom said:
I do agree with that, but it still doesn't mean it's anymore valid, or that
they were in-fact even military. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is hard to make any true comments on the veracity of the claims without seeing the documentary.

However, I am still more concerned that people are willing to justify the use of white phosphorus. Whether you believe the claims or not is one thing, another is suggesting that even if they are true that this is a justifiable action to take.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
However, I am still more concerned that people are willing to justify the use of white phosphorus. Whether you believe the claims or not is one thing, another is suggesting that even if they are true that this is a justifiable action to take.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for them.
I can't see the military here using it like that on purpose though when
they have much more effective means at their disposal.

There could be some slight validity to the story, but as Goto said, I don't
believe it was in a non-militant situation.
Also accidents happen, as in like friendly fire. It's just what happens
sometimes in war, and maybe some of the stuff didn't ignite the way
it was supposed to...

It's still not the same as intentionally dumping on them.
 
The military has one job...to kill people & break things. They do their job well. If the people supporting the terrorists are in the way of killing & breaking, TOO BAD.
 
Gonz said:
The military has one job...to kill people & break things. They do their job well. If the people supporting the terrorists are in the way of killing & breaking, TOO BAD.
Click to expand...

While I can see getting rid of the supporters as well, wasting ammunition is a crime unto itself. The US military has always preached about using the smallest force for the bigget impact. We don't swat flies with cannon.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
I don't see a difference between dead Iraqi civilians and dead American civilians.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. And there wouldn't BE dead Iraqi citizens (at the hands of the US military anyway) had there not been dead American citizens in droves. That kinna pissed us off.

And before you start defending the Iraqi regime from the September 11 onslaught...save your breath. Been there, done that, got the tour shirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top