NationStates Jolt Archive

I am making real efforts to control my temper.

Some people say that nobody knew what happenend in Vietnam till the photos arrived to the free press. Internet is the home of the free press, so I hope you will think twice, when you see these images, if war on Iraq is worthy, and how will you react if you know the name of the soldiers who launched the bombs over the civilians.

This is the effect of the american MDW's over innoccent people, in Fallujah. Casually, the number of the newspapers that published this in Occidental Europe and the USA rounds the number of 0.

+18 images!!!!!


-obscene pictures; don't link to them again. ~Euro

These are only examples. Moderators, if there is any problem, advice me, please.

I've heard from someone that linked graphic images that there was no warning. I'm not sure if you will get the "advice" you're asking for...

I am making real efforts to control my temper.

Some people say that nobody knew what happenend in Vietnam till the photos arrived to the free press. Internet is the home of the free press, so I hope you will think twice, when you see these images, if war on Iraq is worthy, and how will you react if you know the name of the soldiers who launched the bombs over the civilians.

This is the effect of the american MDW's over innoccent people, in Fallujah. Casually, the number of the newspapers that published this in Occidental Europe and the USA rounds the number of 0.

+18 images!!!!!

-snip-

These are only examples. Moderators, if there is any problem, advice me, please.
If I'm not allowed to post photos of gassed Kurd families, you shouldn't be allowed to post pictures of alleged US "attrocities."

If I'm not allowed to post photos of gassed Kurd families, you shouldn't be allowed to post pictures of alleged US "attrocities."

Don't forget the dissetents placed in the Acid Showers! (and not the good Acid eather!)

If I'm not allowed to post photos of gassed Kurd families, you shouldn't be allowed to post pictures of alleged US "attrocities."

I think you are right. BTW. Why do you say "attrocities" and not CRIMES?

**Whatever, it is called freedom of speech. I think I CAN denounce what are those soldiers doing.

I think you are right. BTW. Why do you say "attrocities" and not CRIMES?

**Whatever, it is called freedom of speech. I think I CAN denounce what are those soldiers doing.
Prove that these are the result of any action on the part of US forces. Big claims, small evidence. Put up or shut up.

I think you are right. BTW. Why do you say "attrocities" and not CRIMES?

**Whatever, it is called freedom of speech. I think I CAN denounce what are those soldiers doing.

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist on these forums.

Prove that these are the result of any action on the part of US forces. Big claims, small evidence. Put up or shut up.

Won't happen because this individual has no evidence, merely a dislike for the United States.....somehow I'd wager that, in his or her meager mind, we caused the train bombings in his hometown as well. :rolleyes:

I am making real efforts to control my temper.

Some people say that nobody knew what happenend in Vietnam till the photos arrived to the free press. Internet is the home of the free press, so I hope you will think twice, when you see these images, if war on Iraq is worthy, and how will you react if you know the name of the soldiers who launched the bombs over the civilians.

This is the effect of the american MDW's over innoccent people, in Fallujah. Casually, the number of the newspapers that published this in Occidental Europe and the USA rounds the number of 0.

+18 images!!!!!

-snip-

These are only examples. Moderators, if there is any problem, advice me, please.
Fallujah? Didn't the US warn all the civilians before the marines went in? Didn't they give the civilians a chance to leave before the attack, even though it would result in some terrorists slipping away? Anybody who stayed in Fallujah was either a terrorist, or dying from terminal stupidity.

Won't happen because this individual has no evidence, merely a dislike for the United States.....somehow I'd wager that, in his or her meager mind, we caused the train bombings in his hometown as well. :rolleyes:
It wouldn't surprise me at all. :headbang:

Prove that these are the result of any action on the part of US forces. Big claims, small evidence. Put up or shut up.

It is Rainews!!!!! The italian PUBLIC news agency!!!

That is the main page of the "dossier". The photos are taken from "Gallerie Fotografiche", 1st and 2nd links.

GOT SURPRISED? A source!

It is Rainews!!!!! The italian PUBLIC news agency!!!

-snip-

That is the main page of the "dossier". The photos are taken from "Gallerie Fotografiche", 1st and 2nd links.

Sorry, most of us can't read Italian. IS there an english language version of the page?

EDIT: I also nodiced a link to Democracynow.org on the front page.

What the shit are MDW's anyway?

Sorry, most of us can't read Italian. IS there an english language version of the page?
They're just bitching about the use of White Phosphorus. Nothing interesting.

It is Rainews!!!!! The italian PUBLIC news agency!!!

-snip-

That is the main page of the "dossier". The photos are taken from "Gallerie Fotografiche", 1st and 2nd links.

GOT SURPRISED? A source!
I don't give a shit about the frakking source. I want PROOF! Got it? Proof, as in names, dates, affadavits, facts ... you know ... PROOF!

Did anyone else nodice a link to Democracynow.org on the front page?

Did anyone else nodice a link to Democracynow.org on the front page?
No, but it wouldn't surprise me. :mad:

I don't give a shit about the frakking source. I want PROOF! Got it? Proof, as in names, dates, affadavits, facts ... you know ... PROOF!

Why are you so angry?

Don't you trust Berlusconi's Rainews? Berlusconi sent troops to Iraq... He has no interest on lying AGAINST his allies.

If you prefer, you can read the answer of the Pentagon. but we all know what are they going to say...

More links:

-links removed-

Since I am only one person, I'm unable of doing a deep investigation in 10 minutes. Just google "fallujah genocide" and you'll can browse 324.000 sites.

Why are you so angry?

Don't you trust Berlusconi's Rainews? Berlusconi sent troops to Iraq... He has no interest on lying AGAINST his allies.

If you prefer, you can read the answer of the Pentagon. but we all know what are they going to say...Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Italy pulling it's troops out?

More links:

-snip-

Since I am only one person, I'm unable of doing a deep investigation in 10 minutes. Just google "fallujah genocide" and you'll can browse 324.000 sites.

Goodie! More "unbiased" articles!

And more links:

-snip-

Sadly I dont doubt the truth of these photos, American soldiers have a less than imrpessive record in dealing with civillian populations. More disturbing than these images are those of the babies effected by the radiation from DUP shells the American forces use.

I am not saying Americans are evil or whatever but there military tatics are less than desirable when civillains involved. I dont think any of us will forget the image of the napam burned girl running from vietnam.

Furthermore I notice a that some seem to be suggesting that becuase Saddam did worse the use of indiscrimantory tatics or weaponry is justified. How is emulating the actions of a tyrant in any way logical support for a war?

On the matter of weaponry the US continues to use cluster bombs - bombs that are made up of many small bomblets that are deleivered over a large area from an initial bomb. These can not be controlled and often fail to detonate on impact. This not only indicrismintaely devstates an area but mines it as well. Unfortunately the civillians in the area are not the onyl ones to suffer as US ground troops, often under equipped for the task, are used to remove the UXOs. As a result many are wounded when they inadvertly denonate bomblets.

American soldiers also seem to have a lack of control on firing. I remember seeing an videio taken by an imbedded journalist. In it American soliders, jittery and scared - as anyone would be - are moving through a market area in a Hummer. Someone from a nearby building fires a couple of shots at them and then all hell breaks lose, every US soldier able to shot does so and without much direction, just blasting away at immagined threats. Of course the insurgents got away as soon as they finished firing off a magazine but the US soldiers managed to wound and kill a number of innocent bystanders shopping in the market before roaring off.

This is opposed to British, and rearly, Australian troops who are not allowed tof ire until a target is positively identified. A few times Aussie soldiers have come under sniper fire but as they could not see the sniper they simply took cover and waited for him to stop firing or to be indentified, saving ammunition and reducing collateral damage.

As we saw with the killing of the Italian secret service and the deaths of British service men to American friendly fire it seems that there is a lack of correct engagement procedure for the US soldiers. If they kill allies what chance do bystanders have.

Most of the Americans I have met have been nice people and I do not think that they dilberately do these things, it just seems they dont really think thigns through until they have done them, including using tatics and weaponory that arent suitable for areas with civillian populations.

For those who have not seen the images of the DUP I implore you to have a look. As a side note to this both Australian and Dutch troops spent a large amount of time marking off sites in their areas of operation where American tanks had been in combat as to prevent thier men from being effected by the radation form the spent ammunition.

No one is perfect and US troops are certianly better than many but if they are meant to be protecting civillians and the interests of a stable Iraq then they have to seriously examine the way they engage in combat.

Goodie! More "unbiased" articles!

you've got Asia News and BBC links now

They're just bitching about the use of White Phosphorus. Nothing interesting.

Have you seen what that shit does to people? I watched an AUstralian Army training video on how to treat those wounds and they are nasty as hell. Why the hell are soldiers using that kind of ammunition in urban areas... it just burns anything and everything... water doesnt put it out and niether does smothering it. Its a cruel thing to be hit with

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Italy pulling it's troops out?

It already has

Some of the DUP baby pictures

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html

Have you seen what that shit does to people? I watched an AUstralian Army training video on how to treat those wounds and they are nasty as hell. Why the hell are soldiers using that kind of ammunition in urban areas... it just burns anything and everything... water doesnt put it out and niether does smothering it. Its a cruel thing to be hit with
I should hope that it does inflict horrible wounds. It's a weapon of war. Also the civilians in Fallujah had adequate warning and time to leave. Those that stayed were gambling with their lives. It's their own fault.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Italy pulling it's troops out?

I am confused about that, everything starts in the Cagliari incident.

Warning these are disturbing, as in really fucking sick

-snip-

I would so never be a US tankie

I should hope that it does inflict horrible wounds. It's a weapon of war. Also the civilians in Fallujah had adequate warning and time to leave. Those that stayed were gambling with their lives. It's their own fault.


Oh yeah, you know, just leave your home becuase some American soliders told you to. How would you feel if you where ordered out of your home so someone could rive tanks down your street.

You dont need to use weapons like these to win a war. The best stratergy is minimise damage, espeically if you want the support of the populace

Won't happen because this individual has no evidence, merely a dislike for the United States.....somehow I'd wager that, in his or her meager mind, we caused the train bombings in his hometown as well. :rolleyes:

No, we investigate. That's the difference, many americans still believe that Afghanistan had something in relation with 9/11 and that Saddam had MDWs in 2003.

But really, Bush has changed so many times his reasons that actually nobody knows why are your soldiers there.

BTW, who gave orders or permission to use chemical weapons?

you've got Asia News and BBC links now


BBC yes. And did you even read it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm Says nothing at all to support your claims of US war crimes.

I should hope that it does inflict horrible wounds. It's a weapon of war. Also the civilians in Fallujah had adequate warning and time to leave. Those that stayed were gambling with their lives. It's their own fault.

I've always wondered why some people are so concerned about what weapon kills them.

If you're dead, you're dead. Yes, the civilians in Fallujah fled.

They used white phosphorus yes - but not from the air (we have no bombs that conform to that type), and not from artillery, but there is a Marine After-Action Report that says that the sole use of WP was to rout diehards out of their holes.

The tactic involves asking insurgents who are holed up in a basement to come out. The Marines were commonly answered by gunfire and grenades.

So the next thing that gets thrown down the stairs is a block of primed C-4 with a white phosphorus mortar round attached.

Throw it in and move on.

In other cases, tanks were brought forward to demolish the buildings by direct fire. But only in the case of diehards - and it was policy to ask diehards to surrender.

Lessons Learned: Infantry Squad Tactics in Military Operations in Urban Terrain During Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq

Sgt. Catagnus, Jr. E. J., Cpl. Edison, B. Z., LCpl. Keeling, J. D., and LCpl. Moon, D. A.

3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, Scout/Sniper Platoon, Section 1

Fallujah, Iraq

Introduction

Historically speaking, military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) have created casualty figures that are extraordinary compared to similar operations conducted in different types of environments. The casualties in MOUT present a significant challenge to small unit leaders. Casualties hit Marine infantry squads and fire teams extremely hard because generally speaking they were already under the table of organization (T/O) standards. Some squads in 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines (3/5) commenced the assault on the Jolan with only six Marines. It is the small unit leaders’ duty to accomplish the mission with the least amount of casualties possible. In order for small unit leaders to complete the above task they need tactics and techniques that will prevent casualties.

Section 1 of the Scout/Sniper Platoon has attacked and cleared buildings with all the line companies in 3/5. The authors have observed nearly all the squads in the battalion and have “rolled in the stack” with many of them. This is an experience which few in the battalion have. Knowing this, the authors believe it is their duty to consolidate their observations, produce a comprehensive evaluation of squad tactics and techniques, and pass it onto the squad leaders. The authors’ intent is to give the squad leaders options in combat. It is by no means a “bible,” but it is a guideline. All the tactics and techniques have been proven in combat by one squad or another. Section 1 does not take any credit for the information contained within. The information was learned through the blood of the infantry squads in 3/5.

The entire evaluation has one underlying theme: Accomplish the mission with the least amount of casualties possible.

Terrain and Enemy

Terrain:

The city of Fallujah, Iraq is unlike any city in which Marines have trained for. The layout of the city is random. Zoning distinguishing between residential, business, and industrial is non-existent. An infantry squad could be clearing a house and next door may be clearing a slaughterhouse or furniture wood shop.

The streets are narrow and are generally lined by walls. The walls channelize the squad and do not allow for standard immediate action drills when contact is made. This has not been an issue because the majority of contact is not made in the streets, but in the houses.

The houses are densely packed in blocks. The houses touch or almost touch the adjacent houses to the sides and rear. This enables the insurgents to escape the view of Marine overwatch positions. The houses also are all made of brick with a thick covering of mortar overtop. In almost every house a fragmentation grenade can be used without fragments coming through the walls. Each room can be fragged individually.

Almost all houses have an enclosed courtyard. Upon entry into the courtyard, there is usually an outhouse large enough for one man. The rooftops as well as a large first story window overlook the courtyard. Generally, all the windows in the house are barred and covered with blinds or cardboard restricting visibility into the house.

The exterior doors of the houses are both metal and wood. The wood doors usually have a metal gate over top on the outside of the house forming two barriers to breach. The doors have two to three locking points. Some doors are even barricaded from the inside to prevent entry. There are generally two to three entrances to the house. The entrances are the front, the kitchen, and the side or rear.

The interior doors are also made of metal and wood. The differences between the interior and exterior doors are the strength and durability of the doors. Interior doors only have one locking point and most of them can be kicked in. All doors inside and outside of the house are usually locked and must be breached.

The layout of all the houses is generally the same. Initial entry in the front door leads to a small room with two interior doors. The two doors are the entrance to two adjacent open seating rooms. The size of the rooms varies according to the size of the house. At the end of the sitting rooms are interior doors that open up into a central hallway.

The central hallway is where all the first floor rooms lead and it contains the ladderwell to the second deck. The second deck will contain more rooms and an exit to the middle roof top. The middle roof top will have an exterior ladderwell leading up to the highest rooftop.

Enemy:

The two types of insurgents that the squads are engaging will be labeled the Guerrillas and the Martyrs in this evaluation. The Guerillas are classified by the following principles:

1. Their purpose is to kill many Marines quickly and then evade. They DO NOT want to die. Dying is an acceptable risk to the Guerillas, but their intention is to live and fight another day.

2. The tactics used are classic Guerilla warfare. The Guerillas will engage Marines only on terrain of their choosing when they have tactical advantage. After contact is made the Guerillas will disengage and evade.

3. Their evasion route normally is out of sight of Marine overwatch positions.

The Martyrs are classified by the following principles:

1. The Martyrs’ purpose is to kill as many Marines as possible before they are killed. Time does not have any significance. The Martyrs want to die by the hands of Marines. The final outcome of their actions results in dead Marines as well as their death.

2. Their tactics directly reflect their purpose. The Martyrs will make fortified fighting positions in houses and wait. Marines will come, they will fight, and they will die in place.

Both the Guerillas and Martyrs employ the same weapons. The weapons used are mostly small arms, grenades, and rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s). The Martyrs have used heavy machine guns and anti-air machine guns, unfortunately, with good effects.

The battle positions and tactics that the both employ are somewhat similar. The major differences between the two are the egress route and the fortifications. Guerrillas have an evasion plan, while the martyrs do not. The Guerrillas normally do not have fortified positions.

Marines have been engaged from mouse holes within the house, Guerrillas shooting down from the rooftops when they are moving into the courtyard, Guerrillas and Martyrs shooting and throwing grenades down the ladderwells, in second deck rooms that are fortified or blacked out, and upon breaching of interior doors. Martyrs have emplaced machine gun positions in rooms facing down the long axis of hallways.

The egress routes the Guerrillas use are preplanned and well-rehearsed. They move in groups and withdrawal perpendicular to Marines’ forward line of troops (FLOT). Their movement is through windows of houses, down back alleys, and from roof to roof (only when obscured from Marine overwatch positions). The routes minimize exposure in the streets. Escape routes do not cross streets that run perpendicular to the FLOT, only parallel. This is done because Marine snipers during 2nd Battalion/1st Marines’ (2/1) attack last April devastated the insurgents when attempting to cross those streets. If contact is made with Guerrillas and the block is not isolated on all four sides then their chance of escape increases exponentially. Isolation of the block is absolutely necessary in order to prevent any “squirters.”

Overall, the enemy has adapted their tactics and techniques in order to maximize their strong points and hit Marines when they are the most vulnerable. They have learned from 2/1’s attack last April. This is common sense, but it must be said in order that Marines realize the enemy they are fighting is somewhat intelligent. In MOUT it only takes a miniscule amount of intelligence in order to create massive amounts of casualties.

Squad Tactics

Squad Movement:

During house to house detailed clearing attacks, squads must minimize exposure in the streets. The streets, especially in Fallujah, can become a death trap if a squad is engaged. The squad should run from house to house in a stack with all elements (security, assault, and supporting) in their appropriate position. In the street the stack should be slightly staggered like a tight tactical column. The Marines should have some dispersion, and the pace of the running should not be so fast that the Marines are uncontrolled and not maintaining all around security. As soon as the point man/one man reaches the courtyard breach the stack should close the gaps of dispersion and swiftly move to accomplish their tasks.

All danger areas while on the move must be covered. Security must be three-dimensional and all around. Each Marine in the stack looks to the Marines to his front, assesses danger areas that are not covered, and then covers one of them. If every Marine does this then all danger areas will be covered.

Top Down verse Bottom Up Assaults:

An infantry squad can assault structures using two different methods. Traditionally, the top down assault is taught as being the most ideal method for clearing a structure. Realistically, this may not be the best option for the infantry squad. Below are the advantages and disadvantages of both top down and bottom up assault methods.

Top Down:

Advantages-

1. Surprising the enemy by moving from the top down may throw the enemy off balance. The enemy’s defenses may not be prepared for a top down assault and the squad could overwhelm the enemy rapidly.

2. The squad has more momentum when moving down the ladderwells.

3. If the squad knows that the enemy is inside the roof can be breached in order so grenades and explosives could be dropped on top of the enemy.

4. The enemy’s egress routes are greatly reduced because the squad can isolate the house by holding security on the back alleys and the front of the house from the roof.

Disadvantages-

1. Once the squad makes entry and contact is made, pulling out of the structure is extremely difficult. This limits the options for the squad leader on how to engage the enemy. The structure must be flooded and Marines have to go overtop of casualties in order to kill the enemy. Momentum must not be lost. Marines have been left behind in houses because the momentum was lost.

2. If the squad decides to break contact they are moving opposite of their momentum and more casualties will result.

3. Marine squads may not have enough Marines to effectively flood the structure.

4. If casualties are taken they are nearly impossible to pull up the ladderwell with all their gear and a limp body. This is another reason why the structure must be flooded.

5. The casualties will not receive the immediate first aid because the entire squad must be committed to neutralization of the threat. The swiftness of medical attention may mean the difference between life and death.

Bottom Up:

Advantages-

1. The squad leader has a slew of options when contact is made. The structure does not have to be flooded.

2. Momentum can be maintained in assaulting or breaking contact and the squad leader can switch rapidly from one to the other relatively quickly.

3. The structure can be cleared with fewer Marines because the clearing is more controlled and smooth whereas top down is always in high gear.

4. Casualties can be pulled out faster and easier simply because gravity is working for the squad.

Disadvantages-

1. The squad is moving into the enemy’s defenses. It is easy for the enemy to hold the second deck and ladderwell.

2. The squad is slow moving up the ladderwell which makes it harder to maintain momentum.

3. The enemy has the ability to escape by using its preplanned routes.

Overall, there should not be a standard assault method. Rather the squad leader should understand the advantages and disadvantages of each, assess each structure quickly, make a decision on which method to employ, and then take actions that maximize its advantages while minimizing its disadvantages.

Gaining Footholds:

Footholds are extremely important. By establishing footholds the squad establishes strongpoints during the assault that can be used for consolidation, coordination, base of fire positions, rally points, and casualty collection points. The squad must move from one foothold to another, never stopping until each foothold is attained.

The succession of footholds that the squad establishes will be different when assaulting from either the top down or the bottom up. The following footholds should be seized in this order when assaulting from the top down:

1. All rooftops

2. The inside top deck

3. Each individual lower level to the bottom deck

4. The courtyard

The footholds seized when assaulting from the bottom up are in the reverse order. They are the following:

1. The front courtyard

2. The first two seating rooms

3. The central hallway

4. Each successive upper deck with its respective rooftop

5. Uppermost rooftop

At each individual foothold the squad can consolidate and coordinate its further clearing of the structure. If contact is made the footholds can be used to establish a base of fire in order to assault or break contact. When breaking contact they are used as rally points in order for the squad and fire team leaders to get accountability of all their Marines. The squad will bound back through each foothold. A foothold can also be used as a casualty collection point.

Structure Clearing:

Types of entry

During the assault on a structure there are three different tactics that the squad can use for entry into the structure. The three types of entry are dynamic, stealth, and subdued. The dynamic entry is violently aggressively from start to finish. The commands are verbal and yelled. The squads lead by fire placing one or two rounds in every door that is closed or window that is blacked out. Fragmentation grenades, stun grenades, and flashbangs are used. At night, surefire flashlights are employed in order to clear. The movement of the squad is swift and overwhelming for the enemy inside.

The stealth entry is exactly the opposite of the dynamic entry. The squad breaches quietly, moves slowly, speaks only in whispers, and listens for any movement within the house. There is extreme emphasis placed on initiative based tactics (IBT). During night clearing, night vision goggles and PE Q-2’s are used instead of surefire flashlights. The stealth entry confuses the enemy on exactly where the squad is in clearing the house and allows the squad to maintain the element of surprise.

Subdued entry is a combination of the two previous types. The squad moves quietly until they encounter a room. Upon entry into the room, Marines are violently aggressive. After the room is cleared, the Marines switch back to the stealth method of entry. This type of entry allows the squad leader to control the rate of clearing while maintaining some element of surprise.

It is important to note that squad leaders must vary the type of entry. The squad must constantly mask its movement through every form of deception that may confuse the enemy inside the building or room. It is up to the entire squad to use its imagination and vary their entry tactics and techniques as much as possible. The objective is to keep the enemy off balance and not allow him to get into the squad’s rhythm.

Breaching

There are three types of breaching that were used in Fallujah. The types of breaching are mechanical, ballistic, and explosive. Mechanical breaching of the exterior walls of the courtyard or gate was mostly done by amphibious assault vehicles (AAV’s), tanks, D-9 bulldozers, or HMMWV’s. Sledgehammers and hooligans were used to breach both the metal and wooden doors of the house, but this was and is not the preferred method for breaching. Sledgehammers and hooligans are slow and they require the breacher to stand in front of the door being breach. Obviously, standing in front of the door allows the enemy to engage the breacher through the door.

Ballistic breaching was used mostly on exposed pad locks. Both M16A4’s and shotguns were used. The M16A4’s were employed because there was not enough shotgun ammunition for the amount of locks that had to be breached. They were fairly effective on first round breaching of pad locks if the round was placed near the center. The M203 was also used for breaching. Squads would breach doors of houses that were 50 to 100 meters in front of their position with the M203. It worked extremely well on the exterior metal doors.

The last type of breaching employed was explosive. A multitude of charges were used in order to breach walls, gates, exterior doors, and interior doors. Some of these will be discussed later in this evaluation.

An important principle in breaching that was learned is the Marine making entry is NEVER the breacher. The breacher should always fall in the back of the stack and never go in first. Marines have died because they followed there own breach.

Speed is the most significant factor in all types of breaching. If one method of breaching is not working then the breacher must quickly transition to a different type. Standing in front of a door and beating it with a sledgehammer for ten minutes is unacceptable. The breacher must be able to employ different methods. The squad leader must ensure that the breacher has the necessary equipment and explosives for each method. Every time the squad is stalled because of a breach it is placed in a vulnerable position. Breaching swiftly and effectively is necessary in order for the squad to maintain momentum.

Movement of the Squad within the Structure

Within the structure the squad should move from one foothold to another. The initial foothold is established by the security element. The security element rolls into the courtyard or rooftop and clears every room on the outside. The assault element proceeds directly to an entry point to prepare for the breach. The support element falls in trace and makes the breach.

After the breach is made the assault element makes entry and clears the first two sitting rooms simultaneously by splitting the stack or clears the entire top deck. The support element will assist the assault element by peeling off and clearing rooms or breaching any doors. Security will be left at the courtyard or rooftop foothold in order to isolate the structure and secure the squad’s egress route. Security can be maintained by only two Marines. The rest of the security element will fall in the stack.

After the initial foothold in the structure the stack will consolidate and then advance and clear to the next foothold. The succession will continue until the entire structure is cleared.



At all times the squad will move by using IBT and adhere to its principles which will be addressed later. No Marine should make an uncovered move. The squad should move at a pace that is swift, but controlled, exercising “tactical patience.”

Actions upon Enemy Contact

The squad leader’s options for actions upon enemy contact vary according to where the squad is in its clearing and whether any casualties have been taken. In any contact, the squad and squad leader have two priorities. The two priorities are eliminating the immediate threat and pulling out any casualties. More often than not, the two priorities are connected because in MOUT the enemy is usually close (within feet) and the enemy fire has wounded a Marine.

If contact is made in the courtyard or rooftop the squad should break contact, isolate the house or block, and call in supporting arms (tanks, tracks, etc.). There is no reason to place Marines into the building until it is thoroughly prepped.

If contact is made in the house then the squad leader must quickly evaluate the situation and decide the best course of action. Generally, the squad leader has the following three options:



1. Break Contact – Breaking contact is more of an option during the bottom up assault because of the difficulties in changing the momentum during the top down assault. If casualties are taken or the enemy resistance is strong then this may be the best action for the squad leader to take. Upon breaking contact the squad will bound from one foothold to another getting accountability of all Marines and ensuring that no Marine is left behind. When leaving the house the squad can place a satchel charge or another explosive device in order to bring down the house or burn the enemy out.

2. Flood the House – Squad leaders may choose to flood the house with Marines if a casualty is taken during the top down assault or if the enemy threat is not significant. Casualties cannot be dragged up the stairs quickly, therefore, Marines must neutralize or suppress the threat in order to extract the casualties. In some situations the only way to do this may be to flood the house.

3. Hold the Last Foothold and Clear by Fire – Footholds are strongpoints where the squad can fight from. At the foothold Marines can return fire, throw grenades, and use explosive devices to neutralize the enemy. After the enemy has been damaged the squad can move in and clear the house. If the roof top is the foothold the squad is holding, then the roof could be breached by a directional charge. Grenades or incendiary devices can be thrown into the structure flushing out the enemy.

CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out.

Organization of the Squad:

Some squad leaders in the battalion split their squads in two and assigned different sectors to the two different parts. They did this to move faster through the houses because they were tasked with clearing a lane that may have contained up to fifty or sixty houses. Although this worked and the squads moved faster through their assigned sector it is not the best employment of their squad. The following reasons are given on why splitting the squad is not advisable:

1. If the squad contained twelve Marines and is split in two that leaves two teams of six Marines. Clearing a structure with six Marines, even though the house is small, is extremely risky. If a buddy team of two Marines got hit and went down there would not be enough Marines to provide covering fire while pulling the casualties out. Critical seconds would be wasted waiting for the other team of the squad to come in the house and support the extraction of the casualties. The chances of wounded Marines getting left behind increases exponentially.

2. If contact is made by both teams simultaneously then the squad could be cut down in a piecemeal fashion within a matter of seconds before other squads could even move to reinforce.

When the squad leader organizes his squad he must think about enemy contact always. Squads must not be split in order to increase the speed of clearing. Commanders should not put stress on the squad leaders to clear at a speed that would force the squad leaders to split their squad. Tactical patience must be exercised at every level.

The squad should be organized by using the traditional three elements of assault, support, and security. The amount of Marines contained within each element will vary according to the squad’s number of Marines, the skills and abilities that each individual Marine possess, and the weapons systems that each Marine employs (M249 SAW, M203, and ACOG scoped M16A4’s).

The assault element must contain no SAW’s if that is possible. A SAW gunner must never clear rooms. The assault element should contain the most number of Marines because every room must be cleared with two Marines. The support element will supplement the assault by falling in the stack and peeling off to clear rooms.

Support should include any engineers or assaultman attached to the squad. A SAW gunner should be included in this section in order to provide massive firepower in the house if contact is made. The corpsman is also located in support because he can use his shotgun to breach as well as provide quick medical attention to casualties. The support section will fall in the stack behind the assault element to assist in any way.

Security should contain the other remaining SAW’s in the squad. The security element is responsible for clearing and securing the courtyard or rooftop foothold prior to the assault element moving to the entry point. When assault and support make entry into the structure, two Marines are left behind to isolate the house (rooftop) and secure the squad’s entry point. The rest of the Marines will fall in the stack behind the support section. The security Marines will hold security on all danger areas (mostly the stairs) when the assault and support are clearing each foothold.

Squad leaders must appoint each fire team leader as an element leader. There are no longer fire teams, only assault, support, and security sections. Each element leader will maintain accountability for his section. It is easier for the squad to maintain this organization until the attack is completed and then the traditional four-Marine fire team can be reinstated. The squad leader should emphasis unity of command and succession of command should the squad leader become a casualty.

Squad Communications:

Inter-squad communication between the Marines in the stack is both verbal and visual. Simple, clear, and universal language should be used. Universal language is words and phrases that are standardized so every Marine understands the other. Words and phrases such as, “Hold right, clear left,” and, “Frag out.”

The one man should describe to the stack what he is seeing. In other words, the one man verbally paints the picture for the stack behind. Marines in the stack should be listening not talking. Talking should be kept to a minimum.

After Clearing-Continuing Actions:

After the structure has been cleared the squad must immediately conduct the detailed search of the house for weapons. The search must be quick but thorough leaving nothing untouched. Weapons were found in every conceivable place, underneath couches in the cushions, in between piled up blankets, etc.

Another continuing action would be to render the interior and exterior doors unable to close. This will help if the structure needs to be recleared later. Marines will use their creativity to think of ingenious ways to accomplish this task.

Mission or Time has Priority:

In detailed clearing attacks, time should never be the priority. Marines should never be rushed because they become sloppy and are forced to create shortcuts in order to accomplish the mission under the time restraints. This does not mean that the squads shouldn’t be pushed. This means that a realistic timeline for the attack should be made; a timeline that takes into account the overwhelming task of clearing multiple blocks of houses that may contain platoon sized elements of insurgents.

Individual Techniques and Tactics

Training:

Training is continuous, whether in a combat zone or not. The responsibility of the squad leader is to ensure his squad is combat ready. The individual Marines in his squad must be continuously trained otherwise the Marines will lose proficiency in MOUT skills learned through experience during the attack.

Training does not have to be physical, it can be verbal. The most effective training in this environment is for the squad leader to sit down with his squad and talk. The squad should run through combat scenarios and have individual Marines tell the squad what their jobs are and how they will do it. Communication between Marines can be practiced by talking through universal language, such as, “Open door right, closed door left,” or, “Peel right,” and telling each other what is meant.

All Marines must exercise initiative during combat. Squad leaders must design training techniques in order to stress initiative. Marines must be able to look around, assess what his squad or partner is doing, feed off it, and act in order to support them. Initiative based training is paramount.

Constructive criticism should be encouraged. Every Marine debriefs each other, telling good and bad observations. The squad leader will also be critiqued by his Marines in an appropriate fashion. The criticism is not meant to undermine the squad leaders’ authority. It is to allow the squad leader to instruct the Marines on why he chose to run the squad the way he did. Young Marines will gain knowledge about squad tactics that they may never have figured out if the squad leader did not tell them. It will prepare them for leadership billets. It will also give them confidence in their squad leader because they will trust him and his knowledge.

Techniques:

Techniques that individual Marines need to be taught and practiced are the following:

1. Pieing off all danger areas. Even before entry into a room as many danger areas as possible should be pied off leaving only one or two corners that need to be cleared. Don’t blindly rush into a room, especially if the door is opened.

2. Using the buddy system. Two Marines always peel off the stack, never one.

3. Picking up uncovered danger areas, including when opening doors to furniture when it can fit a man inside.

4. Clearing obstacles, such as furniture.

5. Prepping rooms with grenades.

6. If the room is too small for two Marines or not enough Marines are clearing the house to hold security on all the danger areas, the two-man turns around and covers the rear of the Marine clearing the room.

7. Moving stealthily through a structure even with broken glass on the ground.

8. Making a stealth entry with NVG’s and PEQ-2’s.

9. Making breaching charges and placing them on the locking points of different types of doors.

These are just some of the techniques that need to be practiced and passed on to younger Marines.

Tactics:

Initiative based tactics (IBT) should be taught. There are four rules of IBT. They are the following:

1. Cover all immediate danger areas.

2. Eliminate all threats.

3. Protect your buddy.

4. There are no mistakes. Every Marine feeds off each other and picks up the slack for the other. Go with it.

Every Marine needs to understand and memorize the rules governing IBT. These rules should not only apply to MOUT, but all small unit infantry engagements. Rule number four must be pounded into the squad. There are no mistakes when clearing a structure in combat, only actions that result in situations; situations that Marines must adapt to, improvise, and overcome in a matter of seconds.

Supporting Arms

Throughout contemporary American military history there has not been any opponent that could not be overwhelmed by American supporting arms. The United States Marine Corps has historically been an innovator with the employment of supporting arms. The Marine Corps created the concept of close air support (CAS) in Haiti during the Banana Wars, helicopter envelopment in Korea, and the combined arms team portrayed in the modern Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Fallujah has been another proving ground for American supporting arms. The insurgents were completely overwhelmed by the massive indirect fires and close air support on the first two days of the battle.

At the squad level the results of the fires were felt through the type of enemy they encountered. The enemy dug in deep into the houses, not allowing themselves to get caught in the open. The infantryman of 3/5 have learned the advantages and disadvantages of fixed wing CAS, rotary wing CAS, tanks, combined anti-armor team (CAAT), AAV’s, artillery, bulldozers, and 81 and 60 mm mortars through practical experience.

Fixed wing CAS is an enormous weapon that has great effects on the ground. The major problem with it is the amount of time it takes to get bombs on target. It took entirely too long for bombs to be dropped when Marines were in contact. The minimum safe distance of the ordnance was too great in order for even the block to be isolated and that allowed the enemy to escape countless times. Fixed wing CAS should be used for deep targets. It should not be used when Marines have isolated the structure and trapped the enemy inside. A tank or CAAT section can be more effective Marines do not have to be withdrawn from the cordon.

In contrast to fixed wing CAS, rotary wing CAS was extremely timely, but the effects on target were not extraordinary. The hellfire missiles used did not bring down entire structures, but they did do some damage.

By far the best two supporting arms used were tanks and CAAT. Tanks and CAAT were the infantryman’s best friend. The battle would have been incredibly bloodier if it hadn’t been for tanks and CAAT. The tanks were able to provide a 120 mm direct fire weapon on the spot of any contact within a matter of minutes. The thermal sites were able to pinpoint exact position of snipers and then effectively neutralize them within seconds. CAAT was able to use its M2 .50 caliber machine guns and Mk19 grenade launchers to breach as well as destroy buildings were fire was received from. CAAT also helped the squads by clearing the buildings that lined the street in their lane. The infantry should never attack in MOUT without tanks or CAAT.

Mortars and artillery proved effective by forcing the enemy to stay in the houses and not allowing the enemy to fight the Marines in the streets.

Demolitions

The variety of explosives used during the fight for Fallujah will not be mentioned here. The few that will be explained have a common theme of being obscure and may be forgotten if they are not written down. Each explosive device was developed in response to the enemy’s tactics and has been proven to work.

The following is a list of explosives, a description, and their uses:

1. “Eight Ball” – 1/8 stick of C-4 – Used for breaching both interior and exterior doors, effective and doesn’t use a lot of C-4

2. “House Guest” (Named by 2nd squad, 1st platoon, I Company) – Propane tanks placed in the central hallway with C-4 used to ignite it, creates a fuel air explosive – Used for bringing down a house when contact is made inside, propane tanks must be full

3. A 60 or 81 mm white phosphorous mortar round, wrapped three times with detonation cord and a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of C-4 – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

4. Molotov cocktails – one part liquid laundry detergent, two parts gas – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

All Marines should be familiar with explosives and proper placement of the charge for breaching. Any Marine should be able to cut time fuse, crimp a blasting cap, and put the blasting cap in C-4.

Randomness of Tactics and Techniques

The infantry squad must have a tool box of tactics and techniques. The squad should not fall into a pattern were they become predictable. Being predictable allows the enemy to prepare and modify his tactics in order to exploit the squad’s weaknesses. The squad must be trained well enough to flow through or combine each tactic and technique fairly easily. Marines must use their imagination to think of ways to vary their tactics. The enemy must be kept off balance by changing, at random, squad tactics. For instance, vary the method of entry into the structure, lead by fire then don’t, assault top down then bottom up, don’t use the same entry point every time, throw a fragmentation grenade on the middle roof then assault bottom up. Avoid patterning by all means.

Combat Mindset

Preparing Marines for battle is a difficult task for the squad leader. Squad leaders must be the rock and drill into his Marines that no Marine will be left behind. Marine combat infantrymen understand the meaning of Semper Fidelis. No Marine is left behind.

Marines have to prepare mentally for casualties and be able to rebound quickly in order to kill the enemy swiftly to prevent more casualties. The old saying, “Anything that can go wrong, will,” is always in effect in combat.

Every time a squad makes entry they should expect to make contact. Surprise, speed, and maximum violence wins small unit battles. Marines and leaders need to make quick decisions on the move and under fire, always remembering unity of command.

In combat, Marine leaders are required to stand up and take charge. Unfortunately, sometimes there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The “chief syndrome” will create mass confusion on the battlefield. Being a good combat leader sometimes means stepping back and allowing the Marines to do their jobs. Platoon commanders must allow squad leaders to lead their squads, squad leaders must allow element leaders to lead their elements, and element leaders must allow their Marines to take initiative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this evaluation is nothing more than a guideline for infantry Marines. Squad leaders should take this evaluation, study it, critique it, give it to their squad, have them study it, critique it, and then sit down together to discuss it. The tactics and techniques contained in the evaluation were gained at an enormous price. Marines were killed on the field of battle developing these tactics. It is the duty of every Marine infantryman to not allow these lessons to die with time. This evaluation is only one step in passing on the knowledge.

BTW, who gave orders or permission to use chemical weapons?


Thats an interesting point, phosphorus artillery shells are technically chemical weapons. Wasnt the US against the use of those? Wasnt that the reason it went into Iraq for?

Like I have said, no one needs to use weapons like those to win a war. Bullets, convetional shells and bombs do more than enough damage as is.

Oh yeah, you know, just leave your home becuase some American soliders told you to. How would you feel if you where ordered out of your home so someone could rive tanks down your street.

You dont need to use weapons like these to win a war. The best stratergy is minimise damage, espeically if you want the support of the populace
You know, in the real world sometimes you have to do unpleasant and inconvenient things in order to survive. If you refuse, you die.


The US has tried to minimize damage in Iraq. Warning the residents to leave town for a few days is one example of that. It doesn't work. Maybe bombing cities into rubble would. It certainly pacified the Germans and Japanese.

BBC yes. And did you even read it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm Says nothing at all to support your claims of US war crimes.

Actually, I just saw it was a BBC link, so I posted it. I googled "fallujah genocide" and this page appeared.

And I'm not claiming. I am denouncing. Call your soldiers "heros", now.

Thats an interesting point, phosphorus artillery shells are technically chemical weapons. Wasnt the US against the use of those? Wasnt that the reason it went into Iraq for?

Like I have said, no one needs to use weapons like those to win a war. Bullets, convetional shells and bombs do more than enough damage as is.

White phosphorus shells ARE NOT chemical weapons. Nice of you to spread the ignorance around.

No, we investigate. That's the difference, many americans still believe that Afghanistan had something in relation with 9/11 and that Saddam had MDWs in 2003.

But really, Bush has changed so many times his reasons that actually nobody knows why are your soldiers there.

BTW, who gave orders or permission to use chemical weapons?You don't believe that Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11? They were harboring the terrorist organization responsible and using them as a "foreign legion" to help fight the Northern Alliance. Everybody knows that. Um, everybody but you I guess.

You know, in the real world sometimes you have to do unpleasant and inconvenient things in order to survive. If you refuse, you die.


Yes, war is hell. And if you don't learn how to win, you die.

Demolitions

The variety of explosives used during the fight for Fallujah will not be mentioned here. The few that will be explained have a common theme of being obscure and may be forgotten if they are not written down. Each explosive device was developed in response to the enemy’s tactics and has been proven to work.

The following is a list of explosives, a description, and their uses:

1. “Eight Ball” – 1/8 stick of C-4 – Used for breaching both interior and exterior doors, effective and doesn’t use a lot of C-4

2. “House Guest” (Named by 2nd squad, 1st platoon, I Company) – Propane tanks placed in the central hallway with C-4 used to ignite it, creates a fuel air explosive – Used for bringing down a house when contact is made inside, propane tanks must be full

3. A 60 or 81 mm white phosphorous mortar round, wrapped three times with detonation cord and a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of C-4 – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

4. Molotov cocktails – one part liquid laundry detergent, two parts gas – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

All Marines should be familiar with explosives and proper placement of the charge for breaching. Any Marine should be able to cut time fuse, crimp a blasting cap, and put the blasting cap in C-4.

You know I could copy and paste mannauls of engagement as well, but it doesnt really say anything about the problem. The point here is that innocent Iraqis are being killed by American forces.

No, we investigate. That's the difference, many americans still believe that Afghanistan had something in relation with 9/11 and that Saddam had MDWs in 2003.

Outstanding claim. And your proof that the Taliban was not allowing al Qaida to operate out of Afghanistan?

BTW, since your first language is not English, just a note: in English the correct term is WMDs (Weapons of Mass Distruction) not MDWs.

BTW, who gave orders or permission to use chemical weapons?

Saddam and his generals. (WP is not a chemical weapon, but an incendiary weapon. As such it is acceptable under the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm).)

Thats an interesting point, phosphorus artillery shells are technically chemical weapons. Wasnt the US against the use of those? Wasnt that the reason it went into Iraq for?

Like I have said, no one needs to use weapons like those to win a war. Bullets, convetional shells and bombs do more than enough damage as is.
White Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary. Where did you learn about weapons?

You know I could copy and paste mannauls of engagement as well, but it doesnt really say anything about the problem. The point here is that innocent Iraqis are being killed by American forces.

If they hole up in a basement with a bunch of insurgents, whose only response to a call to surrender is a thrown grenade, then they shouldn't have stayed with the insurgents.

We gave them nearly a week to get out and most did. Despite the fact that that gives the armed insurgents a week to get out as well (and the majority did).

It does say quite a bit about the problem, if you read it. It is not a manual of engagement - it is an after action report - reporting what they did and how they did it.

I don't see anything in there about "go out of your way to waste civilians".

You don't believe that Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11? They were harboring the terrorist organization responsible and using them as a "foreign legion" to help fight the Northern Alliance. Everybody knows that. Um, everybody but you I guess.

It was my temper. But it doesn't explain why the USA didn't attack Pakistan; remember that there are/were lots of Al Qaeda training camps!!!!

And the USA are allies of Musharraf...

You know, in the real world sometimes you have to do unpleasant and inconvenient things in order to survive. If you refuse, you die.


The US has tried to minimize damage in Iraq. Warning the residents to leave town for a few days is one example of that. It doesn't work. Maybe bombing cities into rubble would. It certainly pacified the Germans and Japanese.

Once again you p[rove your ignroance. Most historians agree that the bombing of Japan and Germany served no purpose but physcoigical boosts for the allies. It hardened opinons against the allies in the countries, as it hardened the British. It also failed to reduce the war production of either country, the blockades did more to stop that.

You know I could copy and paste mannauls of engagement as well, but it doesnt really say anything about the problem. The point here is that innocent Iraqis are being killed by American forces.
Innocent people die in every war. Compare the number of civilian casualties in this war with any comparable war in the past and this one looks bloodless.

White phosphorus shells ARE NOT chemical weapons. Nice of you to spread the ignorance around.

Hmmm I would say it is. A chemical used to inflict dagame in conflict. SOUDNS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO ME!

I've always wondered why some people are so concerned about what weapon kills them.

If you're dead, you're dead. Yes, the civilians in Fallujah fled.

They used white phosphorus yes - but not from the air (we have no bombs that conform to that type), and not from artillery, but there is a Marine After-Action Report that says that the sole use of WP was to rout diehards out of their holes.

The tactic involves asking insurgents who are holed up in a basement to come out. The Marines were commonly answered by gunfire and grenades.

So the next thing that gets thrown down the stairs is a block of primed C-4 with a white phosphorus mortar round attached.

Throw it in and move on.

In other cases, tanks were brought forward to demolish the buildings by direct fire. But only in the case of diehards - and it was policy to ask diehards to surrender.

Lessons Learned: Infantry Squad Tactics in Military Operations in Urban Terrain During Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq

< Mega-snip >

It is the duty of every Marine infantryman to not allow these lessons to die with time. This evaluation is only one step in passing on the knowledge.
Don't waste your time. Their minds are made up, please don't confuse them with the truth. It's analagous to "casting pearls before swine;" it's a terrible waste of pearls and only serves to piss off the swine.

If they hole up in a basement with a bunch of insurgents, whose only response to a call to surrender is a thrown grenade, then they shouldn't have stayed with the insurgents.

We gave them nearly a week to get out and most did. Despite the fact that that gives the armed insurgents a week to get out as well (and the majority did).

It does say quite a bit about the problem, if you read it. It is not a manual of engagement - it is an after action report - reporting what they did and how they did it.

I don't see anything in there about "go out of your way to waste civilians".

About the thing of leaving, read a precedent post, o remember New Orleans.

And if you browse deeper in my original photos source, you'll see how many of the images are taken with natural light. Such amount of light, and the sand ground, indicate that the corpses are in the street, not inside a building.

It was my temper. But it doesn't explain why the USA didn't attack Pakistan; remember that there are/were lots of Al Qaeda training camps!!!!

And the USA are allies of Musharraf...
Why didn't the US attack Pakistan? We missed the boat on that one. That country is unstable as hell, and now they have nuclear weapons. Best strategy at this point is to stabilize the country under a strong leader (Musharraf) and pressure him to crack down on the terrorists in his country. We should have attacked there before they developed nukes. Hopefully we've learned our lesson and won't let Iran develop them.

It seems to me this issue is no longer about what is right or just, but what side of the political fence do you sit on. Those who don't like Bush find anything to use against him. And those who do like Bush will defend anything that is done by him. I did not vote for Bush; but I don't think these photo's prove anything. Especially if they were taken in Fallujah. If the poster also put photos of the children and other innocent people killed by the suicide bombers or some of the things that the Iraq army did to people before the invasion. There are no easy answers to this most diffucult period the world is going through. We are (the world)like adolescents struggling to find an identity.

Hmmm I would say it is. A chemical used to inflict dagame in conflict. SOUDNS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO ME!

You don't get to make the definitions. Treaties do.

So you lose.

By your definition, if we dropped water from aircraft onto a building to demolish it, we would be using a "chemical weapon".

Since when does past mistakes justify current ones. Innocents dieing can not really be justified. Furthermore I did not actually mention Fallujah.. the opposing side brought it up here. My reference is in general to the use of that weapon.

You cannot justify US soldiers killing civillains by saying it has happened before.

Sure the casualties have been low for US forces but tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion.

Thats an interesting point, phosphorus artillery shells are technically chemical weapons. Wasnt the US against the use of those? Wasnt that the reason it went into Iraq for?

Like I have said, no one needs to use weapons like those to win a war. Bullets, convetional shells and bombs do more than enough damage as is.

Nope. They are incendiary weapons.

Article 1

Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm


BBC yes. And did you even read it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm Says nothing at all to support your claims of US war crimes.

Actually, I just saw it was a BBC link, so I posted it. I googled "fallujah genocide" and this page appeared.

And I'm not claiming. I am denouncing. Call your soldiers "heros", now.

Great. So you aren't even reading what you are posting to support your claims. (And yes, they are claims. You can't denounce something without claiming it happened. That's just silly. "A didn't happen, but it was a bad thing!" makes no sense.)

Don't waste your time. Their minds are made up, please don't confuse them with the truth. It's analagous to "casting pearls before swine;" it's a terrible waste of pearls and only serves to piss off the swine.

You, mind-closed, presume you are true... but it is ME who showed the photos, and the TWELVE links you FEAR to visit.

If you are so true, it will be easy for you to erase those arguements, but you don't do.

Once again you p[rove your ignroance. Most historians agree that the bombing of Japan and Germany served no purpose but physcoigical boosts for the allies. It hardened opinons against the allies in the countries, as it hardened the British. It also failed to reduce the war production of either country, the blockades did more to stop that.
There was no insurgency in those countries after they surrendered. The people were tired of war and death. Iraq got off easy, so the insurgents still have a will to fight.

It seems to me this issue is no longer about what is right or just, but what side of the political fence do you sit. Those who don't like Bush find anything to use against him. And those who do like Bush will defend anything that is done by him. I did not vote for Bush; but I don't think these photo's prove anything. Especially if they were taken in Fallujah. If the poster also put photos of the children and other innocent people killed by the suicide bombers or some of the things that the Iraq army did to people before the invasion. There are no easy answers to this most diffucult period the world is going through. We are (the world)like adolescents struggling to find an identity.

I, for one, do not believe they were taken in Fallujah. I've seen both photos and videos of before, during, and after the battle. An incredible shortage of civilian casualties, even though the footage I've seen shows streets and houses with the bodies of dead insurgents everywhere.

Casual footage. And in most cases, private footage taken by the soldiers themselves during combat. If they were killing civilians, it would have been impossible to hide on those videos and pictures.

The Arab press has a long history of faking pictures - they do it in the Palestinian conflict almost every day.

Hmmm I would say it is. A chemical used to inflict dagame in conflict. SOUDNS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO ME!
That would make explosives chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are poisons and irritants used against troops. Not incendiary or explosive materials.

Edited to avoid flaming

Once again you p[rove your ignroance. Most historians agree that the bombing of Japan and Germany served no purpose but physcoigical boosts for the allies. It hardened opinons against the allies in the countries, as it hardened the British. It also failed to reduce the war production of either country, the blockades did more to stop that.

Then most historians are idiots, with no grasp of logistics.

The effectiveness of strategic bombing can be easily measured by looking at the ease of the Soviet Unions advances during the 43 campaign.

The soviets started to stall after 8th airforce and RAF Bomber command curtailed operations in the east in preparation for the build up to D-Day. It wasn't until D-Day was well underway and the Germans were fighting on two fronts that the soviets regained as much tactical superiority.

As to the claim that it failed to reduce the war production, that is also bollocks, because there is no way of measuring what it would have been without the bombing. And certianly key industries like ball bearing manufacture were decimated, leading to shortages in war material.

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking Americans or suggesting their soldiers are evil... just they have killed more civillians than they should have and that need to look at the way the engage in combat to prevent civillian deaths.

Hmmm I would say it is. A chemical used to inflict dagame in conflict. SOUDNS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO ME!

Incorrect. If that were the case, you could claim the lead and copper in bullets to be chemical weapons.

:rolleyes:

Since when does past mistakes justify current ones. Innocents dieing can not really be justified. Furthermore I did not actually mention Fallujah.. the opposing side brought it up here. My reference is in general to the use of that weapon.

You cannot justify US soldiers killing civillains by saying it has happened before.

Sure the casualties have been low for US forces but tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion.
1. Using white phosphorus in combat violates no international laws.
2. I mentioned Fallujah because that's the claim in the Arab press about those photos - and I know what happened there.
3. I am not "justifying" the killing of civilians. You have no proof that the pictures are real, or that the people in the pictures were killed by Americans.
4. US policy so far has been to go out of the way to allow civilians to flee an area - even if that means the insurgents get away. How does that square with your idea that we are mercilessly killing everyone we find?

There was no insurgency in those countries after they surrendered. The people were tired of war and death. Iraq got off easy, so the insurgents still have a will to fight.

Iraq got of easy? The reason there are insurgents is becuase the Muslim world sees the invasion as an attack on the Islamic faith, not becuase they arent sick of war and death... i suspect after Saddam they are. Many insurgents are foriegn who wish to harm the US

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking Americans or suggesting their soldiers are evil... just they have killed more civillians than they should have and that need to look at the way the engage in combat to prevent civillian deaths.

We already do that. In terms of comparison to any other country which took over another country by armed force, we've probably broken a record in terms of low casualties (unless you count France in 1940).

Great. So you aren't even reading what you are posting to support your claims. (And yes, they are claims. You can't denounce something without claiming it happened. That's just silly. "A didn't happen, but it was a bad thing!" makes no sense.)

I knew you were giong to answer that. I have read 10 of the 12 links, excepting Asia news and BBC. Here just saw those names and posted them. ANd, about the difference between "claiming" and "denounce", I thought there wasn't. The spanish word "denuncia" covers both meanings, so I couldn't think you see differences. It happened. It is a fact. And I denounce it. And I also denounce that some people still refrains to condemn these war crimes, while only denounce those which serve their interests. I denounce both, and this was the USA time.

1. Using white phosphorus in combat violates no international laws.
2. I mentioned Fallujah because that's the claim in the Arab press about those photos - and I know what happened there.
3. I am not "justifying" the killing of civilians. You have no proof that the pictures are real, or that the people in the pictures were killed by Americans.
4. US policy so far has been to go out of the way to allow civilians to flee an area - even if that means the insurgents get away. How does that square with your idea that we are mercilessly killing everyone we find?


Where did i say that US soliders are merclies killers? I did not suggest this at all, i gave some examples of poor techniques by the US and argued that to many civillians are dieing. I did not say that seek out civillains or dileberately harm them, in fact I gave the impression it was accidental. I am arguing that the troops need to be more careful when in combat and when bombing areas

Iraq got of easy? The reason there are insurgents is becuase the Muslim world sees the invasion as an attack on the Islamic faith, not becuase they arent sick of war and death... i suspect after Saddam they are. Many insurgents are foriegn who wish to harm the US

Remember that Bush calls it CRUSADE!

The proper thing for the United States to do, at least in the minds of some who post in this thread, is to run and hide at the first sign of blood. Witness Spain after the Madrid Train bombings.

To quote (probably more than one) a famous General. "War is Hell". People die, innocent as well as not so innocent. Shit happens. Call me nationalist, unfeeling or asshole....I much prefer that the people that are dying do so over there and not be Americans. When one of your little shithole 3rd world nations steps up to the plate and does as much for the world as the United States does then I'll recognize your opinion as possibly valid, until then you're nothing more than a bunch of Eurotrash sissies with very short memories.

I'd love to see just what shape your economies would be in had Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait and possibly even roll on in to Saudi Arabia. Hell it damned near took blackmail and bribery to get you to get off your asses and help out then, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom. Germany was kind enough to send a couple of chemical detection vehicles over without asking for an arm and a leg.

The lowliest American soldier is far more worthy of the term Hero than any of you posting on here today....you who sit comfortably behind your computer screen and spout blatant lies about that which you know next to nothing about beyond what you glean from a questionable internet source, posted by someone with an obvious agenda.

1. Using white phosphorus in combat violates no international laws.
2. I mentioned Fallujah because that's the claim in the Arab press about those photos - and I know what happened there.
3. I am not "justifying" the killing of civilians. You have no proof that the pictures are real, or that the people in the pictures were killed by Americans.
4. US policy so far has been to go out of the way to allow civilians to flee an area - even if that means the insurgents get away. How does that square with your idea that we are mercilessly killing everyone we find?

Kimchi, the UN and some internation treaties forbid the use of white phosphorus -No, I've searched enough for today, it is your time to look for it and realize-.

Where did i say that US soliders are merclies killers? I did not suggest this at all, i gave some examples of poor techniques by the US and argued that to many civillians are dieing. I did not say that seek out civillains or dileberately harm them, in fact I gave the impression it was accidental. I am arguing that the troops need to be more careful when in combat and when bombing areas

They are more careful.

You have no idea what you're talking about, that's what the problem is.

It's pointless to argue with someone who has no basic knowledge of how the US military works, what weapons it uses, and how. Just someone who pulls assumptions out of a wet paper bag and waves them around with extreme emotion.

Kimchi, the UN and some internation treaties forbid the use of white phosphorus -No, I've searched enough for today, it is your time to look for it and realize-.

Not according to JAG.

Not according to JAG.

I loved that show.

That would make explosives chemical weapons. Only a moron would claim that. Chemical weapons are poisons and irritants used against troops. Not incendiary or explosive materials.

I made that statement becuase the phosphorus wounds and kills, not just the explosion. I classed it as a chemical weapon becuase it is a dangerous chemical dliberately used to cuase harm not in an explosion or to propell to munitions. It is a weapon that continues to cuase harm after the shell as exploded, the wounds grow, where as a wound made by a bullet/shrapnel/an explosion wound not nessacrily.

It seems odd that people are willling to adress a minor point like this but not the real issue of dead civillains

Prove that these are the result of any action on the part of US forces. Big claims, small evidence. Put up or shut up.
Where have you been hiding your head? Are you getting all your info from Fox? The evidence is out, and accumulating! As is the evidence that the Bush/Cheney cabal are the top criminals in this shame. Yet, once again soldiers and grunts are asked to bear the burden of responsibility. So, my question is, why are vets making excuses for thugs like "Five Deferrments" Cheney? Give me a break.

Iraq got of easy? The reason there are insurgents is becuase the Muslim world sees the invasion as an attack on the Islamic faith, not becuase they arent sick of war and death... i suspect after Saddam they are. Many insurgents are foriegn who wish to harm the US
Iraq got off easy. Compare Fallujah to Dresden. Compare Bagdad to Tokyo. Compare the number of civilian deaths to the number in Vietnam. Iraq seems unscathed by comparison.

Where have you been hiding your head? Are you getting all your info from Fox? The evidence is out, and accumulating! As is the evidence that the Bush/Cheney cabal are the top criminals in this shame. Yet, once again soldiers and grunts are asked to bear the burden of responsibility. So, my question is, why are vets making excuses for thugs like "Five Deferrments" Cheney? Give me a break.

Vets might just be saying things based on the truth, truths that they have experienced, not truths that the garnered from hiding back on their comfy couches reading the internet and babbling about stuff they know nothing about. :headbang:

The proper thing for the United States to do, at least in the minds of some who post in this thread, is to run and hide at the first sign of blood. Witness Spain after the Madrid Train bombings.

To quote (probably more than one) a famous General. "War is Hell". People die, innocent as well as not so innocent. Shit happens. Call me nationalist, unfeeling or asshole....I much prefer that the people that are dying do so over there and not be Americans. When one of your little shithole 3rd world nations steps up to the plate and does as much for the world as the United States does then I'll recognize your opinion as possibly valid, until then you're nothing more than a bunch of Eurotrash sissies with very short memories.

I'd love to see just what shape your economies would be in had Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait and possibly even roll on in to Saudi Arabia. Hell it damned near took blackmail and bribery to get you to get off your asses and help out then, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom. Germany was kind enough to send a couple of chemical detection vehicles over without asking for an arm and a leg.

The lowliest American soldier is far more worthy of the term Hero than any of you posting on here today....you who sit comfortably behind your computer screen and spout blatant lies about that which you know next to nothing about beyond what you glean from a questionable internet source, posted by someone with an obvious agenda.

I think that you knowledgements on World History, and in International politics, are so poor that your post is not valid.

And any guy, don't mind if he's a terrorist or an american soldier, that kills a child, can not be called a hero, but a sh**.

Those are not lies, but proofs. It is imlpy that you don't want to believe the news that italian source brings to you. So I'm forced to think you don't believe the Pentagon report in the same page.

They are more careful.

You have no idea what you're talking about, that's what the problem is.

It's pointless to argue with someone who has no basic knowledge of how the US military works, what weapons it uses, and how. Just someone who pulls assumptions out of a wet paper bag and waves them around with extreme emotion.

Well I may not be a serving member of the US army but I do have a pretty good knowledge of the weapons they use, I have researched a lot on this as I wrote an essay on Australis defence procurement policy. I have also many documentaries, from many different people and read many texts on the conflict in Iraq. I do not need to be a soldier to see dead bodies in the street. I struggle to see why so many sources would lie about civillian casualties. Some may but to suggest all are is ludicrous.

Once again people are attacking me and not really adressing the issue here. Sad that people turn to personal attacks rather than argue the real issue here. If you read my first post you'll note that is written a calm matter and I only got atigated after inflamitory comments by drunken commie and his friends.

Not according to JAG.

I loved that show

Now it's me who says you use a biased source.

Iraq got off easy. Compare Fallujah to Dresden. Compare Bagdad to Tokyo. Compare the number of civilian deaths to the number in Vietnam. Iraq seems unscathed by comparison.

Um well there have been an estimated 40 000 civillain deaths since the invasion. Iraq has also been living under siege since Saddam got agressive. It also suffered the long war with Iran under Saddam, which the US supported. The Iraqi people certinaly havent been having fun for the last couple of decades.

So the US and their allies killing non combtants in Vietnam makes it alright now becuase they are killing less? (I am not suggeting that they did all of the killing or even a magority, but they did kill some and that is the point)

No my little misguided Spanish friend....it is proof that I have been there, I have worn the uniform and I have shot and been shot at in the shithole middle east. I didn't get my information from a website or my local tv news station. I have sat through and participated more training and classes than you can possibly imagine on warfare and rules of engagement and then I've gone out and practiced what I've been taught. You and your friends that intimate that U.S. Soldiers indiscriminately kill innocents are nothing more than apologetic mouthpieces for failed liberal / socialist policies in your own countries. Put on a uniform, pick up a gun and run a patrol through Fallujah, Bagdad or any other number of cities and town in Iraq, then come back here and tell us how bad it is and how many innocents we killed while you were there....otherwise shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about.

Now it's me who says you use a biased source.

He was not refering to the show, but the Judge Advocate General corps. The show was a pseudo-military dramatization.

Once again people are attacking me and not really adressing the issue here. Sad that people turn to personal attacks rather than argue the real issue here.

Maybe they think "that is the truth", ad hominem attacks.

Well I may not be a serving member of the US army but I do have a pretty good knowledge of the weapons they use, I have researched a lot on this as I wrote an essay on Australis defence procurement policy. I have also many documentaries, from many different people and read many texts on the conflict in Iraq. I do not need to be a soldier to see dead bodies in the street. I struggle to see why so many sources would lie about civillian casualties. Some may but to suggest all are is ludicrous.

Once again people are attacking me and not really adressing the issue here. Sad that people turn to personal attacks rather than argue the real issue here. If you read my first post you'll note that is written a calm matter and I only got atigated after inflamitory comments by drunken commie and his friends.
What personal attacks? I only pointed out that you don't know the difference between chemical weapons and incendiaries. It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact based on an ignorant remark you made.

To quote (probably more than one) a famous General. "War is Hell". People die, innocent as well as not so innocent. Shit happens. Call me nationalist, unfeeling or asshole....I much prefer that the people that are dying do so over there and not be Americans. When one of your little shithole 3rd world nations steps up to the plate and does as much for the world as the United States does then I'll recognize your opinion as possibly valid, until then you're nothing more than a bunch of Eurotrash sissies with very short memories.


You're an unfeeling, nationalist asshole.

You're an unfeeling, nationalist asshole.

I'm also blonde, blue eyed and 6ft tall.....I'd fit right in (in fact I did for the 4 years I was stationed there) in Germany.....maybe we can go bash a couple of Turks heads in huh? :rolleyes:

Moving....Maybe i have to say this a little BIGGER

Um well there have been an estimated 40 000 civillain deaths since the invasion. Iraq has also been living under siege since Saddam got agressive. It also suffered the long war with Iran under Saddam, which the US supported. The Iraqi people certinaly havent been having fun for the last couple of decades.

So the US and their allies killing non combtants in Vietnam makes it alright now becuase they are killing less? (I am not suggeting that they did all of the killing or even a magority, but they did kill some and that is the point)
Non combatants have always died in war. The US has consistently reduced the number of civilian casualties in every war after WWII. You're still complaining though. Face it, nothing the US can do will make you change your mind. Even if the US found a way to eliminate civilian casualties completely you'd probably still be upset because they're killing the enemy.

Well I may not be a serving member of the US army but I do have a pretty good knowledge of the weapons they use, I have researched a lot on this as I wrote an essay on Australis defence procurement policy. I have also many documentaries, from many different people and read many texts on the conflict in Iraq. I do not need to be a soldier to see dead bodies in the street. I struggle to see why so many sources would lie about civillian casualties. Some may but to suggest all are is ludicrous.

Once again people are attacking me and not really adressing the issue here. Sad that people turn to personal attacks rather than argue the real issue here. If you read my first post you'll note that is written a calm matter and I only got atigated after inflamitory comments by drunken commie and his friends.


If the US were not concerned about civilian casualties, as you imply, and we were not going to cut civilians any slack, the US

- would never have invested in smart bombs - 90 percent of our dropped ordinance is smart bombs. Why have a smart bomb? If we didn't care about civilians, we could go back to the technology of the 1960s, where a bomb missed by an average of 750 meters

- would never give civilians warning that we're going to go into a town

- would not bother with radically increasing the accuracy of our artillery - a first shot accuracy that puts steel on target on the first go-round

- would probably use cluster munitions dropped from large bombers and carpet bomb towns like Fallujah (we don't carpet bomb!)

You're probably disappointed that we DON'T do those things.

Non combatants have always died in war. The US has consistently reduced the number of civilian casualties in every war after WWII. You're still complaining though. Face it, nothing the US can do will make you change your mind. Even if the US found a way to eliminate civilian casualties completely you'd probably still be upset because they're killing the enemy.


Perchance he's merely upset because we're using firearms to do so? I believe they've gone so far as to ban swords in the land down under.
Too bad really, every Aussie I've ever met was a downright nice guy....of course they were all Military, maybe that had something to do with it. ;)

The proper thing for the United States to do, at least in the minds of some who post in this thread, is to run and hide at the first sign of blood. Witness Spain after the Madrid Train bombings.

To quote (probably more than one) a famous General. "War is Hell". People die, innocent as well as not so innocent. Shit happens. Call me nationalist, unfeeling or asshole....I much prefer that the people that are dying do so over there and not be Americans. When one of your little shithole 3rd world nations steps up to the plate and does as much for the world as the United States does then I'll recognize your opinion as possibly valid, until then you're nothing more than a bunch of Eurotrash sissies with very short memories.

I'd love to see just what shape your economies would be in had Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait and possibly even roll on in to Saudi Arabia. Hell it damned near took blackmail and bribery to get you to get off your asses and help out then, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom. Germany was kind enough to send a couple of chemical detection vehicles over without asking for an arm and a leg.

The lowliest American soldier is far more worthy of the term Hero than any of you posting on here today....you who sit comfortably behind your computer screen and spout blatant lies about that which you know next to nothing about beyond what you glean from a questionable internet source, posted by someone with an obvious agenda.


You know its funny how many Americans who claim to be patriots contradict the founding fathers. Who said, and he was a great man, that "Any nation that sacrifices civil liberties to gain security deserves niether and will lose both" (probably slightly incorrect but close enough) wasn't it the founding fathers who also talked of isolation and peace? But dont concentrate on that . I am simply poking fun at this poor misguided individual.

As for shitty 3rd world nation. Well MATE I AM AUSTRALIAN. WE HAVE BETTER LIVING STANDARDS THAN YOU! WE HAVE LONGER LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED YOU INTO BOTH VIETNAM AND IRAQ!

There is also little evidence Saddam was going to invade Saudi Arabia, but maybe he should have becuase Al Quieda considered him an enemny and most of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.

Gosh darn... drunken commie maybe violently opposed to me but i think he has at least read a book or too. WHy do people like yourself insist on making fools of yourself. I know I am being slightly hypocritical but dam... i mean come on

Non combatants have always died in war. The US has consistently reduced the number of civilian casualties in every war after WWII. You're still complaining though. Face it, nothing the US can do will make you change your mind. Even if the US found a way to eliminate civilian casualties completely you'd probably still be upset because they're killing the enemy.

You know all you had to say was that killing civillians is bad but the Americans try not to, even though they lack some finess in this field. A bit of a sideways addmintance but its nice to see you agree with me.

No my little misguided Spanish friend....it is proof that I have been there, I have worn the uniform and I have shot and been shot at in the shithole middle east. I didn't get my information from a website or my local tv news station. I have sat through and participated more training and classes than you can possibly imagine on warfare and rules of engagement and then I've gone out and practiced what I've been taught. You and your friends that intimate that U.S. Soldiers indiscriminately kill innocents are nothing more than apologetic mouthpieces for failed liberal / socialist policies in your own countries. Put on a uniform, pick up a gun and run a patrol through Fallujah, Bagdad or any other number of cities and town in Iraq, then come back here and tell us how bad it is and how many innocents we killed while you were there....otherwise shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about.

I think that so much action and uniforms has affected your point of view about the real world, or at least about the other's position. I have no reason to go to Baghdad to kill or die. I live in Madrid. I know what is terrorism, because we suffer it since 1960. I have heard more than a shot and more than a bomb, and I've seen more than a person affected by this. And I still don't see the reason to attack any country.

I maintain you don't know anything about history and politics.

No my little misguided Spanish friend....it is proof that I have been there, I have worn the uniform and I have shot and been shot at in the shithole middle east. I didn't get my information from a website or my local tv news station. I have sat through and participated more training and classes than you can possibly imagine on warfare and rules of engagement and then I've gone out and practiced what I've been taught. You and your friends that intimate that U.S. Soldiers indiscriminately kill innocents are nothing more than apologetic mouthpieces for failed liberal / socialist policies in your own countries. Put on a uniform, pick up a gun and run a patrol through Fallujah, Bagdad or any other number of cities and town in Iraq, then come back here and tell us how bad it is and how many innocents we killed while you were there....otherwise shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey hey hey. I am probably going to enter the AUstralian army, one of my friends of Uni is an ex soldier and served as a boyd guad in the middle east. He actually refers to the place in a dreamy kind of way as he loved the people and the culture. I dare you to call him a liberla pansy

I would say the cluster bombs do kill indiiscrimnately. Dropping hundreds of bomblets over a large area can not really be called careful targetting. Ah yes becuase Australia has followed the US into war we are in fact pansies and socialists.

I did not say that Americans are bad or that the deaths are dilberate but they are happening and it is a bad thing

There is a reason they do not use Cluster Bombs in urban areas.

You know all you had to say was that killing civillians is bad but the Americans try not to, even though they lack some finess in this field. A bit of a sideways addmintance but its nice to see you agree with me.

As finesse goes, the US has spent billions of technological development on the subject. More than any other nation on Earth.

And with the exception of France in 1940, the US invasion of Iraq is probably one of the invasions with the least number of civilian casualties.

I'm also blonde, blue eyed and 6ft tall.....I'd fit right in (in fact I did for the 4 years I was stationed there) in Germany.....maybe we can go bash a couple of Turks heads in huh? :rolleyes:

Um i think that comment pretty much barred you from making any further comments on this matter.

I'm also blonde, blue eyed and 6ft tall.....I'd fit right in (in fact I did for the 4 years I was stationed there) in Germany.....maybe we can go bash a couple of Turks heads in huh? :rolleyes:

I must decline your offer. Mostly because I'm not an unfeeling, nationalist, racist asshole.

*WHISTLES AT APLASTALAND*

I would remove the rest of your links if i were you. Check your first post.


-obscene pictures; don't link to them again. ~Euro

As finesse goes, the US has spent billions of technological development on the subject. More than any other nation on Earth.

And with the exception of France in 1940, the US invasion of Iraq is probably one of the invasions with the least number of civilian casualties.

*Extracted from the "How to justify an illegal war" book.

As finesse goes, the US has spent billions of technological development on the subject. More than any other nation on Earth.

And with the exception of France in 1940, the US invasion of Iraq is probably one of the invasions with the least number of civilian casualties.

True they have spent billions, but they still drop more "dumb bombs" than "smart bombs" kosovo was the only conflict where smart weapons played the dominant role in the air campaign

I must decline your offer. Mostly because I'm not an unfeeling, nationalist, racist asshole.

Are you unable to comprehend that they are making a joke? I already made a comment about you calling him a name in the Moderation Forum. Don't make me report you again...

*Extracted from the "How to justify an illegal war" book.

That's not a justification for illegal war, if you can read English. It's an answer to a claim that somehow, the US is more careless than other nations when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties.

*WHISTLES AT APLASTALAND*

I would remove the rest of your links if i were you. Check your first post.

haha, okay!! I just saw that,and I understand it's his work. The other links are just links to news webs and blogs.

There is a reason they do not use Cluster Bombs in urban areas.

But they do use them near urban areas and in areas contianing civillian populations.

*WHISTLES AT APLASTALAND*

I would remove the rest of your links if i were you. Check your first post.

Aplastaland - I don't think you can be given any bigger hints without the aid of flashing lights and audio-visual effects.

But they do use them near urban areas and in areas contianing civillian populations.

Proof?

I think that so much action and uniforms has affected your point of view about the real world, or at least about the other's position. I have no reason to go to Baghdad to kill or die. I live in Madrid. I know what is terrorism, because we suffer it since 1960. I have heard more than a shot and more than a bomb, and I've seen more than a person affected by this. And I still don't see the reason to attack any country.

I maintain you don't know anything about history and politics.

My position is that it's a dog eat dog world and while one should do what they can to help others and to minimize the impacts of their actions on innocents, the end result is more important. If killing 100 innocent Iraqi (or any other belligerent nation) civilians through collateral damage is going to save 1 American or allies life then I'm all for it. I'm sorry that it had to happen but as I said, war is hell and the objective is to stay alive and complete the mission.

Aplastaland - I don't think you can be given any bigger hints without the aid of flashing lights and audio-visual effects.


I could probably make that happen...although i would need some good images for that....haha

That's not a justification for illegal war, if you can read English. It's an answer to a claim that somehow, the US is more careless than other nations when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties.

Well just compare the British controlled parts of Iraq to the US ones and note the difference in civillian casualties from coalition fire.

You know instead of fighitng this desperate and misguided argument you could have just agreed that the deaths were horrible and regretable but that you were sure the US soldiers didnt mean it.

Well just compare the British controlled parts of Iraq to the US ones and note the difference in civillian casualties from coalition fire.


And make sure you include population density, amount of contact resulting in firefights and total land area in that comparison.

Hmmm I would say it is. A chemical used to inflict dagame in conflict. SOUDNS PRETTY MUCH LIKE A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO ME!
Human beings are made up of chemicals. By your logic, any humans that inflict damage are CHEMICAL WEAPONS too.

Ban the humans!

And make sure you include population density, amount of contact resulting in firefights and total land area in that comparison.

And the Brits are in the Shiite areas, where the people welcomed being liberated from Saddam

And the US is in the Sunni areas, where the people who were backing Saddam all live - and have lost those nice government jobs

Brantor: I have no idea what a "Boyds Guard" is but I can assure you that were your friend to come around me preaching the evils of my country and fellow soldiers I'd have zero compunction about putting him in his place.

As for your joining the Military.....be prepared to change your world view, you'll soon find (if you actually deploy into a hostile environment) that the very things you've been claiming are untrue.

Human beings are made up of chemicals. By your logic, any humans that inflict damage are CHEMICAL WEAPONS too.

Ban the humans!


To quote Larry the Cable Guy: "That right there's funny, I don't care who ya are."

Well just compare the British controlled parts of Iraq to the US ones and note the difference in civillian casualties from coalition fire.That may have a bit more to do with ethnic background than who's governing it, especially since there's a lot more incentive to do something nasty in the capital city for the sake of public attention. Baghdad for instance would still be a hotspot even if it was controlled by the British.

Brantor: I have no idea what a "Boyds Guard" is but I can assure you that were your friend to come around me preaching the evils of my country and fellow soldiers I'd have zero compunction about putting him in his place.

As for your joining the Military.....be prepared to change your world view, you'll soon find (if you actually deploy into a hostile environment) that the very things you've been claiming are untrue.

As for learning about war, his politics will go out the window when that first bullet snaps past...

That's not a justification for illegal war, if you can read English. It's an answer to a claim that somehow, the US is more careless than other nations when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties.

Man, you're pretending to see me as a dumb... but intelligence means reading between lines.

My position is that it's a dog eat dog world and while one should do what they can to help others and to minimize the impacts of their actions on innocents, the end result is more important. If killing 100 innocent Iraqi (or any other belligerent nation) civilians through collateral damage is going to save 1 American or allies life then I'm all for it. I'm sorry that it had to happen but as I said, war is hell and the objective is to stay alive and complete the mission.

Take for sure that I had supported this war if the reason you are giving to me were true. But since those children died for oil I can't support it.

Man, you're pretending to see me as a dumb... but intelligence means reading between lines.
I'm not pretending.

If the US were not concerned about civilian casualties, as you imply, and we were not going to cut civilians any slack, the US

- would never have invested in smart bombs - 90 percent of our dropped ordinance is smart bombs. Why have a smart bomb? If we didn't care about civilians, we could go back to the technology of the 1960s, where a bomb missed by an average of 750 meters

Actually that is incorrent smart munitions still are the minorty used for bombing

I'm not pretending.
ROFLMAO!!!! :D

Actually that is incorrent smart munitions still are the minorty used for bombing

I suggest you go back and do your reading.

Over 90 percent of the munitions in OIF were smart munitions.

Your ignorance of military subjects is appallling.

I'm not pretending.

Another ad hominem attack, and Freesbeeteria is near here...

Actually that is incorrent smart munitions still are the minorty used for bombing
In fact, get a copy of this book:
http://www.byrrdbooks.com/transamerairpower.html

which shows the transformation between the 1991 Gulf War and the Air Force that ended up bombing Iraq in OIF.

You'll see how much you lack in knowledge.

Take for sure that I had supported this war if the reason you are giving to me were true. But since those children died for oil I can't support it.
They didn't die for oil, they died for ideology. The price of the war was so high that we would need the total output of all of Iraq's oil wells for quite some time to pay it off. I wish it were for oil. It would at least help our our economy.

Take for sure that I had supported this war if the reason you are giving to me were true. But since those children died for oil I can't support it.

I am not giving you a reason for anything and I don't really care if you support the war or not. That said, anyone who believes that ANY war is fought for altruistic reasons is entirely too naive to be taken seriously. Nobody does ANYTHING without a reason, especially a Nationstate and to believe otherwise smacks of willfull ignorance (stupidity). My support for the war stems from the first gulf war and the lack of enforcement of the ceasefire agreements signed. I don't need to see WMD caches to know that they were there, plenty of proof of their existence can be found in northern and southern Iraq where they were used against the Kurds, in Iran where they were used against Iranian soldiers during the war.

It's you my friend that are naive for believing that any nation would fight a war in which they had nothing to gain, whether it be strategic basing rights, free or cheap oil or whatever else may come to mind.

Brantor: I have no idea what a "Boyds Guard" is but I can assure you that were your friend to come around me preaching the evils of my country and fellow soldiers I'd have zero compunction about putting him in his place.

As for your joining the Military.....be prepared to change your world view, you'll soon find (if you actually deploy into a hostile environment) that the very things you've been claiming are untrue.

You know I doubt it. I was in the cadets when I was at school at in I met an ex infantry officer who had served two combat tours of vietnam as a leitant, while he maintains we could have won the war he sure as hell didnt say it was right. I did not say that my friend was against US policy, although I think he his, nor did I say Americans were bad, just that civillians deaths are regretable and that by removing DUP muntions, cluster bombs and similar weapons and ensuring strict controls on firing by troops civillian deaths could have and could be avioded

I think I'll depart this thread.

I have no interest in discussing anything with people whose knowledge of the weapons, strategy, and tactics of US forces is not only so miniscule, but apparently they are completely unwilling to read up on it - perhaps they might discover that their view of the world is completely wrong.

I think I'll depart this thread.

I have no interest in discussing anything with people whose knowledge of the weapons, strategy, and tactics of US forces is not only so miniscule, but apparently they are completely unwilling to read up on it - perhaps they might discover that their view of the world is completely wrong.

MMk you do that... I dont think either myself or the orginal poster has demonsrated much ignorance.

Another thing Nalraider... I have heard people boast about being soliders before without actually having served. Could you provide some info that would confirm you actually served and that you served in the middle east?

I am not giving you a reason for anything and I don't really care if you support the war or not. That said, anyone who believes that ANY war is fought for altruistic reasons is entirely too naive to be taken seriously. Nobody does ANYTHING without a reason, especially a Nationstate and to believe otherwise smacks of willfull ignorance (stupidity). My support for the war stems from the first gulf war and the lack of enforcement of the ceasefire agreements signed. I don't need to see WMD caches to know that they were there, plenty of proof of their existence can be found in northern and southern Iraq where they were used against the Kurds, in Iran where they were used against Iranian soldiers during the war.

It's you my friend that are naive for believing that any nation would fight a war in which they had nothing to gain, whether it be strategic basing rights, free or cheap oil or whatever else may come to mind.

Then Bush, the warlord, lied again; when he gave the reason of "it is to freed the Iraqis and the World of an Evil dictator", and what the people did was re-elect him. Cool.

I think I'll depart this thread.

I have no interest in discussing anything with people whose knowledge of the weapons, strategy, and tactics of US forces is not only so miniscule, but apparently they are completely unwilling to read up on it - perhaps they might discover that their view of the world is completely wrong.

That's it, start a thread about weapons and tactics, and leave the politics alone.

Um I have hear a document that outlines the phosphurs is an illegal weapon by UN definitions and that there are serious concerns about US operations in Iraq

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/148/42/PDF/G0514842.pdf?OpenElement

Please read

MMk you do that... I dont think either myself or the orginal poster has demonsrated much ignorance.

Another thing Nalraider... I have heard people boast about being soliders before without actually having served. Could you provide some info that would confirm you actually served and that you served in the middle east?

1.- Thank you.

2.- That's it, "I want proofs, PROOFS" :D

And if Nalraider is capable of give that info... I'll say I don't believe it because it's biased... :rolleyes:

That's it, start a thread about weapons and tactics, and leave the politics alone.

When you're telling outright lies about the weapons and tactics, it's impossible to leave those out of the discussion. Unless, of course, you want to whitewash the lies so that they seem true.

I am still waiting to see how we carpetbomb people...

Brantor my friend, I don't rightly give a rats ass if you believe me or not. Any "proof" I could provide you short of personal information that identifies me personally is readily available on the internet and could easily be found by going to an order of battle listing on any number of websites. You choose for yourself whether to believe I was there or not, your belief is neither necessary nor particularly desired.

Look up Hafar Al Batin, MSR Blue, MSR Dodge, 73 Easting or any other number of keywords and you'll find plenty of units listed.

Another document that states phosphurs is a chemical weapon, this is about UN sanctions on Iraq

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/s%2022871%20rev.1.pdf

MMk you do that... I dont think either myself or the orginal poster has demonsrated much ignorance.

Another thing Nalraider... I have heard people boast about being soliders before without actually having served. Could you provide some info that would confirm you actually served and that you served in the middle east?

Scout Platoon, HHC, 2/502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), Operation Desert Storm. Was a scout sniper who saw duty as far as the Euphrates.

Haven't been in the current OIF, but I have many friends who are currently there (as well as in other places). I even manage to have friends in foreign militaries (such as GIGN and the UK Army).

Brantor my friend, I don't rightly give a rats ass if you believe me or not. Any "proof" I could provide you short of personal information that identifies me personally is readily available on the internet and could easily be found by going to an order of battle listing on any number of websites. You choose for yourself whether to believe I was there or not, your belief is neither necessary nor particularly desired.

Look up Hafar Al Batin, MSR Blue, MSR Dodge, 73 Easting or any other number of keywords and you'll find plenty of units listed.

73 Easting was a battle during the first gulf war, not the recent one. COuld you give your rank, basic assignment details and what you were doing in Iraq. I mean this respectfully as I do have respect for those who have served. What was your unit called ie battallion number and what service you where in and what role you played in the services (grunt, tankie, logisitcs, mechanic)

If you're interested, there's a poster here named Myrmidonisia who was an A-6 navigator (a Navy attack plane for the disinformed).

Ask him about what kinds of weapons are dropped - in the old days and currently - he knows.

Well has anyone looked at the documents I have used to back my claims about phosphorus. They porve conclusively that my claims are sound. Sorry to dissapoint, of course the US doesnt seem to recognise the UN and its mandates

sad isnt it Aplastaland, that as soon as we start finding evidence that completely justifies and supports our position they change the topic or leave?

Well has anyone looked at the documents I have used to back my claims about phosphorus. They porve conclusively that my claims are sound. Sorry to dissapoint, of course the US doesnt seem to recognise the UN and its mandates

Just because the UN is concerned about it doesn't make it illegal.

Also, you may be interested in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

But don't read it if you don't want to find out how wrong you are.

Another document that states phosphurs is a chemical weapon, this is about UN sanctions on Iraq

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/s%2022871%20rev.1.pdf
A search on that PDF for the phrase "white phosphorus" yielded no results.

Yet another document that clearly states phosphurus is an interntionally illegal weapon

www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/lebanon12.doc

sad isnt it Aplastaland, that as soon as we start finding evidence that completely justifies and supports our position they change the topic or leave?

I noticed that as soon as I posted my details, you stopped talking to me.

A search on that PDF for the phrase "white phosphorus" yielded no results.
search for just straight "phosphorus"

Still no comment from Brantor on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Yet another document that clearly states phosphurus is an interntionally illegal weapon

www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/lebanon12.doc
Also searched this document for the phrase "white phosphorus". Also found no results. Are you just posting random links?

well where is nalraider? I expect him to back his claims of serving. Otherwise I am simply going to discount him. Its scary how many people claim to have served but havent

sad isnt it Aplastaland, that as soon as we start finding evidence that completely justifies and supports our position they change the topic or leave?

Yeah we've got that in Spain too, we call it repressed filofascists because that's how things used to run under Franco...

73 Easting was a battle during the first gulf war, not the recent one. COuld you give your rank, basic assignment details and what you were doing in Iraq. I mean this respectfully as I do have respect for those who have served. What was your unit called ie battallion number and what service you where in and what role you played in the services (grunt, tankie, logisitcs, mechanic)

That is when I was there Brantor, I was a forward support radio and crypto tech from 2nd Corps Support Command, 7th Corps attached to an MST that went into Iraq with the 1st Infantry division. When we weren't sitting still we were pulling march security through every little shithole Iraqi village that we went through during the "left hook".

Nothing so glamorous as an 11B Infantry, just one of many getting shot and and shooting back.

this one names white phosphorus, search for phosphorus

http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/adn-agree/ADN2005/English/19ADN_Chap3-3to3-4_E.pdf

well where is nalraider? I expect him to back his claims of serving. Otherwise I am simply going to discount him. Its scary how many people claim to have served but havent


Sorry to disappoint you pissants but again, you believing or not believing me means less than a glass of whale piss. Get over yourselves.

search for just straight "phosphorus"
Dude, the phosphorus compounds mentioned are organophosphates. Stuff like VX and Tabun. Not incendiary white phosphorus. That's like calling carbon a chemical weapon because you can't make cyanide without it. Where were you in chemistry class?

try Breathing the anger out.

well where is nalraider? I expect him to back his claims of serving. Otherwise I am simply going to discount him. Its scary how many people claim to have served but havent

I still see silence from you after I told you where I served.

That is when I was there Brantor, I was a forward support radio and crypto tech from 2nd Corps Support Command, 7th Corps attached to an MST that went into Iraq with the 1st Infantry division. When we weren't sitting still we were pulling march security through every little shithole Iraqi village that we went through during the "left hook".

Nothing so glamorous as an 11B Infantry, just one of many getting shot and and shooting back.


Cool. Sorry to demand details but I have had people claim to have served and then turned out to be 14 year old kids trying to make themselves sound cool. Still as a solider I would expect you to agree that death is horrible and all methods should be used to prevent it if innocents are involved, especially if weaponry that is not nessacry is involved

Dude, the phosphorus compounds mentioned are organophosphates. Stuff like VX and Tabun. Not incendiary white phosphorus. That's like calling carbon a chemical weapon because you can't make cyanide without it. Where were you in chemistry class?

I'm betting that the individual in question is still in school actually, most likely he hasn't gotten that far along in his courses of study yet.

Dude, the phosphorus compounds mentioned are organophosphates. Stuff like VX and Tabun. Not incendiary white phosphorus. That's like calling carbon a chemical weapon because you can't make cyanide without it. Where were you in chemistry class?

There's no telling them that - to them, everything the US does is illegal and wrong.

Scout Platoon, HHC, 2/502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), Operation Desert Storm. Was a scout sniper who saw duty as far as the Euphrates.

Haven't been in the current OIF, but I have many friends who are currently there (as well as in other places). I even manage to have friends in foreign militaries (such as GIGN and the UK Army).

Sorry missed that, just checked. Same response as to nalraider

Cool. Sorry to demand details but I have had people claim to have served and then turned out to be 14 year old kids trying to make themselves sound cool. Still as a solider I would expect you to agree that death is horrible and all methods should be used to prevent it if innocents are involved, especially if weaponry that is not nessacry is involved

If you like, I can refer you to people who knew me in the service.

Flame weapons are sometimes necessary.

And I already know that we go out of our way to reduce civilian deaths.

You are asserting that we do no such thing. I haven't seen any proof from you on that yet.

Dude, the phosphorus compounds mentioned are organophosphates. Stuff like VX and Tabun. Not incendiary white phosphorus. That's like calling carbon a chemical weapon because you can't make cyanide without it. Where were you in chemistry class?

thats not the only mention, and there are certinaly mentions in other articles, including the mentioning of the use of phospurus bombs by US forces

thats not the only mention, and there are certinaly mentions in other articles, including the mentioning of the use of phospurus bombs by US forces
Well copy and paste them then. I don't really feel like wasting more time on your sources. They've turned out to be useless so far.

Cool. Sorry to demand details but I have had people claim to have served and then turned out to be 14 year old kids trying to make themselves sound cool. Still as a solider I would expect you to agree that death is horrible and all methods should be used to prevent it if innocents are involved, especially if weaponry that is not nessacry is involved


Of course I agree that death sucks for those that are doing it. However, and I'll say it as many times as it take for you to finally get it. Better them than me, my friends, my fellow soldiers, my family or my allies. Had you ever served in any military (at least any Western Military that I've ever worked with) then you would know that the ROE we are placed under are extremely restrictive and designed to minimize or eliminate where possible, collateral damge and innocent casualities.

An example of un-necessary weaponry would be using a Nuke to eliminate a holdout in a basement, not using a PGM airstrike.

I think we're arguing with some Kay-det.

I'll give you a piece of good advice - never join the service. You'll only get yourself and the others around you killed.

Dude, the phosphorus compounds mentioned are organophosphates. Stuff like VX and Tabun. Not incendiary white phosphorus. That's like calling carbon a chemical weapon because you can't make cyanide without it. Where were you in chemistry class?

I heard this morning on TV how the white phosphorus acts. It provokes you 3rd degree burns when in contact with the skin... although it doesn't burn the clothes (I posted a very illustrative photo of this, a burnt skeleteon with perfect clothes). If inhaled, it creates blisters in your respiratory system... and then burns you from inside...

If you like, I can refer you to people who knew me in the service.

Flame weapons are sometimes necessary.

And I already know that we go out of our way to reduce civilian deaths.

You are asserting that we do no such thing. I haven't seen any proof from you on that yet.

I did at no point say that US soldiers dilbertately target civillains. What I have been saying that weapons like DUP shells and cluster bombs are almost gaurenteed to cuase collateral damage. I have also seen quite a few videos from Iraq were US soliders just let loose with everything after a couple of shots, even in populated areas. They demonsrated no clear fields of fire or even a a strong fire command structure.

I heard this morning on TV how the white phosphorus acts. It provokes you 3rd degree burns when in contact with the skin... although it doesn't burn the clothes (I posted a very illustrative photo of this, a burnt skeleteon with perfect clothes). If inhaled, it creates blisters in your respiratory system... and then burns you from inside...

Yup, nasty stuff....so do yourself a favor and don't make us have to use it on you.

Dead is dead, doesn't much matter how you die. What part of "war is hell" is it that you liberal whiners just can't comprehend?????

I think we're arguing with some Kay-det.

I'll give you a piece of good advice - never join the service. You'll only get yourself and the others around you killed.

Um I am in know way suggesting that the cadets gave me military expereince, just that i met some interesting people, including the mentioned officer in it. I was in it for the fun. Secondly I doubt you can seriously determine my ablities in anything but interent arguing from this. 'Sides I want to get into intelligence if i do end up joining. Fudge being a grunt

I heard this morning on TV how the white phosphorus acts. It provokes you 3rd degree burns when in contact with the skin... although it doesn't burn the clothes (I posted a very illustrative photo of this, a burnt skeleteon with perfect clothes). If inhaled, it creates blisters in your respiratory system... and then burns you from inside...
Yeah it burns. It's an incendiary. On contact with oxygen it reacts exothermically to produce phosphorus pentoxide, much like carbon burning to produce carbon dioxide. The phosphorus pentoxide produced is corrosive. So what? It was used on a city who's residents were warned to evacuate. Those who stayed didn't die from white phosphorus, they died from terminal stupidity. Unfortunately that condition seems incurable.

I did at no point say that US soldiers dilbertately target civillains. What I have been saying that weapons like DUP shells and cluster bombs are almost gaurenteed to cuase collateral damage. I have also seen quite a few videos from Iraq were US soliders just let loose with everything after a couple of shots, even in populated areas. They demonsrated no clear fields of fire or even a a strong fire command structure.

Oh, I see. When the insurgents fire at you, it's a good idea to sit there and let them shoot at you.

A little piece of advice kid - don't join the service. You'll die in combat, holding your fire, and the men around you will be killed because of your ignorance.

It's a standard reaction to incoming fire. You might hear, "action left" or "action right" but then again, if you're with great troops, no one will have to say anything - they'll just put lead out towards the incoming fire.

If you stand there like some of the LTs I remember, you'll be left behind or catch a bullet from the insurgents because you're standing up thinking about how horrible it all is.

Well copy and paste them then. I don't really feel like wasting more time on your sources. They've turned out to be useless so far.

You know most of the documents simply require you to seach for the word phosphorus and imediately a couple of mentions pop up. If I can do it so can you otherwise go to the search of the UN website I did and take some time

http://secap174.un.org/search?ie=utf8&q=Phosphorus+weapons&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&ip=202.6.138.42&imgGO.y=14&imgGO.x=7&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8&start=10

Oh, I see. When the insurgents fire at you, it's a good idea to sit there and let them shoot at you.

A little piece of advice kid - don't join the service. You'll die in combat, holding your fire, and the men around you will be killed because of your ignorance.

It's a standard reaction to incoming fire. You might hear, "action left" or "action right" but then again, if you're with great troops, no one will have to say anything - they'll just put lead out towards the incoming fire.

If you stand there like some of the LTs I remember, you'll be left behind or catch a bullet from the insurgents because you're standing up thinking about how horrible it all is.

Well firing randomly is going to do shit. bullets have to be aimed at people to work. Thats why the Aussie solsiders when fired upon in Iraq did not fire becuase they couldnt identify a target. There is no point in randoomly shooting, especially if you are simply endagering peoples lives for no point. I am not suggesting the soliders should nto return fire but it should be directed, controlled and targeted, not random bursts into buildings around you

You know most of the documents simply require you to seach for the word phosphorus and imediately a couple of mentions pop up. If I can do it so can you otherwise go to the search of the UN website I did and take some time

http://secap174.un.org/search?ie=utf8&q=Phosphorus+weapons&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&ip=202.6.138.42&imgGO.y=14&imgGO.x=7&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8&start=10
I did a search. I found regulations on the transport of white phosphorus and other dangerous materials. Nothing on it's illegality. I'm not wasting any more time with your links. If you want to prove a point, copy and paste along with the link. It's not my job to do your research for you.

Furthermore firing is fucking loud.. i have been shooting on a range with automatic weapons and Im pretty sure i couldn't hear anything but the bolt flying back and forth. If thats all you can hear then you will find it harder to indetify the target with sounds... I would prefer to hear gunfire than see a muzzle flash... "oh thats where he is... " splat

Well firing randomly is going to do shit. bullets have to be aimed at people to work. Thats why the Aussie solsiders when fired upon in Iraq did not fire becuase they couldnt identify a target. There is no point in randoomly shooting, especially if you are simply endagering peoples lives for no point. I am not suggesting the soliders should nto return fire but it should be directed, controlled and targeted, not random bursts into buildings around you

I don't know who taught you such stupid ideas about combat, but the first reaction to ambush is NOT precision fire. You put out rounds in order to suppress and shock the enemy. You do aim and shoot at what you can, but this is not always possible.

Yes, you do put bursts into entire sides of buildings, especially if you can't tell which window the person ducked back into.

Whole treelines. Etc.

Every armed force does it. It's what they train to do.

"Just as the usage of internationally banned weapons (depleted uranium, phosphorus, cluster, nails) in daily attacks led to a increasing the number of pulmonary and neurological diseases "

Well that was easy... i have more if needed

I don't know who taught you such stupid ideas about combat, but the first reaction to ambush is NOT precision fire. You put out rounds in order to suppress and shock the enemy. You do aim and shoot at what you can, but this is not always possible.

Yes, you do put bursts into entire sides of buildings, especially if you can't tell which window the person ducked back into.

Whole treelines. Etc.

Every armed force does it. It's what they train to do.

But that's not how it's done in Medal of Honor Europe on my PS2 so it must not be right. :p

I did a search. I found regulations on the transport of white phosphorus and other dangerous materials. Nothing on it's illegality. I'm not wasting any more time with your links. If you want to prove a point, copy and paste along with the link. It's not my job to do your research for you."Just as the usage of internationally banned weapons (depleted uranium, phosphorus, cluster, nails) in daily attacks led to a increasing the number of pulmonary and neurological diseases "

Well that was easy... i have more if needed


Not so good at following instructions completely, are you?

Furthermore firing is fucking loud.. i have been shooting on a range with automatic weapons and Im pretty sure i couldn't hear anything but the bolt flying back and forth. If thats all you can hear then you will find it harder to indetify the target with sounds... I would prefer to hear gunfire than see a muzzle flash... "oh thats where he is... " splat

Once again, that's not how you find targets. I can see it now, you ordering your men to stop firing so they can "hear" the enemy.

Bullets fly faster than the speed of sound. If I'm using a suppressor (and I did on my M-21 during the First Gulf War), you won't be able to tell where I'm firing from - the rifle will make no sound and the bullet will make a loud crack as it passes - causing extreme disorientation as to the direction of the incoming fire.

I could shoot half your men out from under you while you try to figure out where I am.

I don't know who taught you such stupid ideas about combat, but the first reaction to ambush is NOT precision fire. You put out rounds in order to suppress and shock the enemy. You do aim and shoot at what you can, but this is not always possible.

Yes, you do put bursts into entire sides of buildings, especially if you can't tell which window the person ducked back into.

Whole treelines. Etc.

Every armed force does it. It's what they train to do.

Um well thats what the reports from the army in Iraq said about there response to a sniper attack. Its all so what i learnt in basic firearms training with a WO and a Sgt from Kopeca (the basic training base for all non officer entries in AUstralia)

Um well thats what the reports from the army in Iraq said about there response to a sniper attack. Its all so what i learnt in basic firearms training with a WO and a Sgt from Kopeca (the basic training base for all non officer entries in AUstralia)

Then you'll die in combat. I've seen what happens to people who are under sniper attack who delay their reaction in order to figure out where and what is going on. They die if the sniper is any good at all.

You know drunken commie I have already provided the link. Here is the one for this quote.. it is talking about the conflict in Lebannon but mentions the weapons

www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/lebanon12.doc - 2005-03-10

Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

See how it's done Brantor?

Then you'll die in combat. I've seen what happens to people who are under sniper attack who delay their reaction in order to figure out where and what is going on. They die if the sniper is any good at all.

They didnt delay reaction, they took cover and tried to identify the target.. as the sniper found he couldn't see the Aussies and armoured vechiles were moving into the area he presumable run away. I dont think the soldiers would have agined anything by randomly firing in the situation but making really loud nioses and altering the sniper as to all of their positions

I don't give a shit about the frakking source. I want PROOF! Got it? Proof, as in names, dates, affadavits, facts ... you know ... PROOF!

There he goes again, staunchly defending the rights of the big guy. Who cares about those stinky brown people anyway, right? I mean "[S]o many of the people ... here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them."

I've got it.


EL PAÍS is the spanish newspaper with the highest print run.

http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporint/20051109elpepiint_12/Tes

I've got it. This newspaper says that the RAInews report is based on the confession of Jeff Englehart (ex marine).

Según el Pentágono, en la toma de Faluya, un bastión de la guerrilla suní, murieron "1.600 combatientes enemigos y 51 soldados estadounidenses". El recuento no incluyó víctimas civiles. Diversas ONG y periodistas que acompañaban a los marines sitúan en 800 la cifra mínima de víctimas civiles.

El fósforo blanco no es considerado un arma química, sino incendiaria, y cargado en un proyectil ilumina un terreno de casi un kilómetro cuadrado durante un par de minutos. "Puede usarse en un campo de batalla, pero no en una ciudad", declaró el ex soldado Englehart. "Quema los cuerpos, los disuelve hasta dejar el esqueleto desnudo", añadió. Englehart dirige desde que dejó el Ejército un diario electrónico contra la guerra (www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com).

El presentador del programa, Sigfrido Ranucci, afirmó que las pruebas resultaban concluyentes y que Estados Unidos había utilizado el fósforo blanco "no para iluminar Faluya, sino para destruirla".

Pentagon says, in the Fallujah assault died 1,600 enemies and 51 american soldiers. The count excluded civilians. Some organizations and journalists estimate in minimum 800 the dead civilians.

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, but burning, and can illuminate about 1 km2 for two minutes, declared Englehart. It can be used in a battlefield, but not in a city. It burns the bodies, dissolves them till the skeleton. Since he left the Army, runs an anti-war weblog.

The newsreader, Sigfrido Ranucci, said that the proofs were conclusing and that the USA used white phosphorus "not to illuminate Fallujah, but to destroy it".

EL MUNDO, a well known right-wing newspaper, also adds that in the report other soldiers confirm the use of MK77, a variant of Napalm.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2005/11/08/internacional/1131463224.html

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

See how it's done Brantor?

Whatever... my evidence stands though... and i would prefer UN sources to wikepedia, which is not exactly overly accademic.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

See how it's done Brantor?

I would add that the US possesses no air to ground ordnance that uses white phosphorus.

They didnt delay reaction, they took cover and tried to identify the target.. as the sniper found he couldn't see the Aussies and armoured vechiles were moving into the area he presumable run away. I dont think the soldiers would have agined anything by randomly firing in the situation but making really loud nioses and altering the sniper as to all of their positions

I'm speaking from experience. It doesn't matter if you take cover. If I could see the top of a head, it was mine.

I don't need to see people fire to see where they are. Well, make sure your parents know you won't be coming back from an overseas deployment, and you'll be getting your friends killed as well.

I would add that the US possesses no air to ground ordnance that uses white phosphorus.

I did not say it did. This is an irrevelavnt argument though. The point is that many civillian deaths and injuries cuased by American soldiers could have been avioded if DUP muntions were not used, if cluster bombs and similar weapons were not used and if American soldiers eased off on the agression a bit, as in the example I gave

Whatever... my evidence stands though... and i would prefer UN sources to wikepedia, which is not exactly overly accademic.
No, your evidence sucks. First you try to claim that White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon, no dice. Then you try to claim that it's a banned weapon. Still nothing.

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .

from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. Tear gas grenades were also useful in the fighting in Grozny.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_38/forum38.html

I'm speaking from experience. It doesn't matter if you take cover. If I could see the top of a head, it was mine.

I don't need to see people fire to see where they are. Well, make sure your parents know you won't be coming back from an overseas deployment, and you'll be getting your friends killed as well.

Well I stand by the fact that since the end of the vietname war Australian soliders have been killed by vechiles, disease and thigns but there hasnt been a death cuased by enemy combantants. Your welcome to your beliefs but this is not the main argument

Well I stand by the fact that since the end of the vietname war Australian soliders have been killed by vechiles, disease and thigns but there hasnt been a death cuased by enemy combantants. Your welcome to your beliefs but this is not the main argument
Perhaps it looks like chaotic return fire to you because you have no combat experience and are watching a video.

I don't see you complaining, however, about the rampant and random use of roadside bombs by insurgents, who are more likely to kill innocent civilians than any other cause in this war.

Only complain about the Americans, and only from a position of ignorance.

Brantor, are you pulling a "Jesussaves" type scam?

No, your evidence sucks. First you try to claim that White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon, no dice. Then you try to claim that it's a banned weapon. Still nothing.



from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm


http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_38/forum38.html


Ok, well i read the UN information as quite dilberately listing phosphorus as a banned weapon and it seems to be grouped with chemical weapons in many documents. As I said, please look through the documents brought up by the search. I am not going to bother arguing on this point any more, as I have constantly said. The point is that there are unnessacry deaths in Iraq

Ok, well i read the UN information as quite dilberately listing phosphorus as a banned weapon and it seems to be grouped with chemical weapons in many documents. As I said, please look through the documents brought up by the search. I am not going to bother arguing on this point any more, as I have constantly said. The point is that there are unnessacry deaths in Iraq
There are unnecessary deaths on the highways of Australia. What's your point?

I said I've got it!!!


For those who want proofs, the ex marine who confesses is named Jeff Englehart

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9907210&postcount=190

Perhaps it looks like chaotic return fire to you because you have no combat experience and are watching a video.

I don't see you complaining, however, about the rampant and random use of roadside bombs by insurgents, who are more likely to kill innocent civilians than any other cause in this war.

Only complain about the Americans, and only from a position of ignorance.

This forum is about the death of Iraqi civillians, I agree that the other side is far worse than the coalition but two wrongs does not make a right. I belive it is important for coalition forces to maintain a good rep as good will is required to win this conflict. Thus unnessacry deaths should be avioded at all costs. Otherwise not only Iraqis will die but coaltion troops, mostly US ones, will die too

The same Marine who was discredited not only by the military, but by the foreign reporters from various news agencies who were never able to get the same story from him twice?

Very funny!

Ok, well i read the UN information as quite dilberately listing phosphorus as a banned weapon and it seems to be grouped with chemical weapons in many documents. As I said, please look through the documents brought up by the search. I am not going to bother arguing on this point any more, as I have constantly said. The point is that there are unnessacry deaths in Iraq
No, the point is that you have no understanding of the chemistry involved in the "banned weapons" links that you posted. The point is that you can't find quotes from the links to support your position. The point is that it seems you don't know what you're talking about and won't admit it.

This forum is about the death of Iraqi civillians, I agree that the other side is far worse than the coalition but two wrongs does not make a right. I belive it is important for coalition forces to maintain a good rep as good will is required to win this conflict. Thus unnessacry deaths should be avioded at all costs. Otherwise not only Iraqis will die but coaltion troops, mostly US ones, will die too
We're already taking great pains to avoid them. You seem to think that we're careless, callous, and wicked.

Go back to school.

I said I've got it!!!


For those who want proofs, the ex marine who confesses is named Jeff Englehart

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9907210&postcount=190

What you have is a quote from a self professed anti-war individual with an agenda, in this case to, at the very least, promote his web-ring blog and more likely, to attempt to smear the Marine Corps and the United States for some perceived wronging he received at their hands.

In other words, it's about as meaningful as any of the other tripe you've posted to date in this thread.

There are unnecessary deaths on the highways of Australia. What's your point?

We combat road deaths with safety measures... there is a logical conintuation

The same Marine who was discredited not only by the military, but by the foreign reporters from various news agencies who were never able to get the same story from him twice?

Very funny!

I can't believe you. I want proofs. :D Or maybe you are the tipical righ-wing militarist who thinks that he is true "por cojones"!

I can't believe you. I want proofs. :D Or maybe you are the tipical righ-wing militarist who thinks that he is true "por cojones"!

You should attempt to obtain some of those for yourself and the rest of your country.....maybe then we wouldn't be having this discussion. :p

I can't believe you. I want proofs. :D Or maybe you are the tipical righ-wing militarist who thinks that he is true "por cojones"!
Sorry - different Marine - same crazy stories.

s Jimmy Massey telling the truth about Iraq?
By Ron Harris
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
11/05/2005

Jimmy Massey former marine staff sergeant says Marines intentionally are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.



WASHINGTON

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey's claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn't.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

"Psychopathic killers"

Massey, 34, of Waynesville, N.C., was with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines based out of Twentynine Palms, Calif. The unit went to the Middle East in January 2003 and participated in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of that year.

Massey was discharged in December 2003, shortly after returning from Iraq due to depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

He began turning up in the press and on broadcasts last spring with stories about military atrocities. Massey's primary thrust has been that Marines from his battalion - some of whom, he told a Minneapolis audience, were "psychopathic killers" - recklessly shot and killed Iraqi civilians, sometimes, he said, upon orders from their commanders. During a hearing in Canada, Massey said, "We deliberately gunned down people who were civilians."

The Marine Corps investigated Massey's claims and said they were "unsubstantiated."

From the beginning, Massey misled reporters.

In early interviews, he told how he had lost his job at a furniture store because of his anti-war activities. But when asked about the incident in an interview Oct. 19 with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he had quit his job but never had felt pressure to leave.

"I left on good terms," he said.

He also backtracked from allegations he made in a May 2004 radio interview and elsewhere that he had seen a tractor-trailer filled with the bodies of Iraqi civilians when Marines entered an Iraqi military prison outside Baghdad. He said the Iraqis had been killed by American artillery.

He told listeners that the scene was so bad "that the plasma from the body and skin was decomposing and literally oozing out of the crevices of the tractor-trailer bed."

He repeated the story in the Post-Dispatch interview. But when told that the newspaper's photographs and eyewitness reports had identified the trailer contents as all men, mostly in uniform, Massey admitted that he had never seen the bodies.

Instead, he said, he received his information from "intelligence reports." When asked if those reports were official documents, he answered, "No, that's what the other Marines told me."

Changing stories

The details of Massey's stories changed repeatedly.

For example, he almost always told his audiences and interviewers of an event he said he'd never forget: Marines in his unit shooting four civilian Iraqis in red Kia automobile.

In some accounts, Massey said Marines fired at the vehicle after it failed to stop at a checkpoint. In another version, he said the Marines stormed the car.

Sometimes he said three of the men were killed immediately while the fourth was wounded and covered in blood; sometimes he said the fourth man was "miraculously unscathed."

Sometimes he said the Marines left the three men on the side of the road to die without medical treatment while the fourth man exclaimed: "Why did you shoot my brother?" In other versions, he said the man made the statement as medical personnel were attempting to treat the three other men, or as the survivor sat near the car, or to Massey personally.

There is no evidence that any of the versions occurred.

In another story that Massey often tells, he and other Marines in his platoon fired upon a group of innocent demonstrators shortly after they arrived in Baghdad. Massey said that the demonstrators were protesting the Marines' presence, holding signs in English and Arabic.

The Marines heard a shot, Massey said, and in panic began firing into the demonstrators.

In some versions, the demonstrators were near a checkpoint. In other versions, they were outside a prison on a road about 200 meters away, or anywhere from 5 to 15 miles from Baghdad International Airport.

Massey told a version of the story before an immigration hearing in December in support of an American soldier trying to flee to Canada. Then, Massey said he and the Marines killed four of the demonstrators. In other interviews, he said the Marines shot at 10 demonstrators and killed all of them but one, whom he let crawl away.

In interviews with more than a dozen Marines and journalists who were in the military complex that morning, none can recall such an incident.

They say that during the first week to two weeks inside Baghdad, they never saw any protesters.

Ron Haviv, an independent photographer embedded with the unit, said he never saw any protesters or demonstrators, with or without signs.

"Basically, the only people who were on the streets in the first week were there to loot," said Haviv, who has covered conflicts across the globe, including the first Gulf War, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Russia.

Lt. Kevin Shea, the commander of Massey's platoon, recalls that on the morning after they arrived, about 20 Iraqis from a nearby community did approach the Marines to ask what was happening. Shea said that he had explained what the Marines were doing and that the Iraqis had gone back to their homes.

Civilians shot

The Marine Corps readily admits that some of its men shot civilians, but not intentionally, they said. The Post-Dispatch reported on the second day of the war that Marines in one battalion had mistakenly shot and killed members of a British-based television network while shooting at Iraqi attackers.

When Marines moved into Baghdad a month later, the Post-Dispatch reported two separate automobile-related incidents in which Marines from Massey's battalion inadvertently shot and wounded 12 civilians. All of the passengers survived after treatment by medical personnel.

In a fourth incident, Maj. Dan Schmitt said, Marines shot "what we believe to be a non-combatant" because when the Marines raised their arms in a signal to stop, the vehicle continued moving quickly at them.

An Iraqi doctor who helped treat the wounded passengers told them that they needed to use another hand signal because they one they were using indicated solidarity, not stop.

But none of the five journalists who covered the battalion said they saw reckless or indiscriminate shooting of civilians by Marines, as Massey has claimed. Nor did any of the Marines or Navy corpsmen who served with Massey and were interviewed for this story.

One of the checkpoint shootings is apparently the basis for one of most poignant recollections claimed by Massey in numerous speeches and interviews: The shooting of a 4-year-old girl in the head.

While touring with Sheehan in Montgomery, Ala., he told of seeing the girl's body. "You can't take it back," he said, according to the local newspaper.

But in the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey admitted that he never had seen the girl.

"Lima Company was involved in a shooting at a checkpoint," he said. "My platoon was ordered to another area before the victims were removed from the car. The other Marines told me that a 4-year-old girl had killed."

Girls unharmed

No 4-year-old died in the incident or was even wounded, according to witnesses including a Post-Dispatch photographer at the scene who filed photos of the incident that were published in the newspaper.

Two women and two girls were in the car that the Marines shot when it failed to stop at a checkpoint and continued to approach the Marines at high speed, said Maj. George Schreffler, then the commanding officer of Lima Company. Schreffler was there at the time.

Petty Officer Justin Purviance, who treated them, said the two women were wounded but survived. The girls were unharmed, he said.

In other speeches, Massey has said he personally shot a 6-year-old child. In some versions, the child was a boy; at other times, a girl.

"How is a 6-year-old child with a bullet in his head a terrorist, because that is the youngest I killed," Massey told a Cornell University audience in March. In a speech in April in Springfield, Vt., he said: "That's war: a 6-year-old girl with a bullet hole in her head at an American checkpoint."

In a speech in Syracuse in March, the Post Standard newspaper quoted him as saying, "The reason the Marines teach you discipline . . . is so that you can confront the enemy and kill him. . . . Or so you can put a bullet into a 6-year-old, which is what I did. "

In the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he never personally had shot a child.

"I meant that's what my unit did," he said.

He could not provide details.

Nor could he name any Marine who could corroborate any of his stories.

"Admitting guilt is a hard thing to do," he said.

rharris@post-dispatch.com 202-298-6880

We're already taking great pains to avoid them. You seem to think that we're careless, callous, and wicked.

Go back to school.

I am getting sick of this... read my original post and all of my following ones. I have in fact stated that i do not belive Americans are evil, nor that they intend these deaths but they way the operate and in particular the weapons they use cuase a greater amount of collateral damage than is acceptable.

As for the school thing... well i did pretty darned well there

What you have is a quote from a self professed anti-war individual with an agenda, in this case to, at the very least, promote his web-ring blog and more likely, to attempt to smear the Marine Corps and the United States for some perceived wronging he received at their hands.

In other words, it's about as meaningful as any of the other tripe you've posted to date in this thread.

Negative, my words-made-of-fog friend. This is the report of Giuliana Sgrena, the italian journalist shot by americans when tried to escape from her kidnappers. She swore revenge telling everything she knew, and she begun saying that she had seen so many things that americans wanted her dead. Now this is her testimony, her work, and her proofs about that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are the beginning and not the end.

Brantor, are you pulling a "Jesussaves" type scam?

Yes I want to save your souls from the devil...

No I'm agnostic as no relgion and no science can exlpain everything or provide enough evidence to completely satisfy me so I sit in the middle, the "I dont know" section.

However I do invite all the Mormons and Jehovahs I get at my house in to discuss religion and theology becuase most of them are nice and its good to have an argument for fun

I am getting sick of this... read my original post and all of my following ones. I have in fact stated that i do not belive Americans are evil, nor that they intend these deaths but they way the operate and in particular the weapons they use cuase a greater amount of collateral damage than is acceptable.

As for the school thing... well i did pretty darned well there
Then I'll assume you didn't take any chemistry classes.

Yes I want to save your souls from the devil...

No I'm agnostic as no relgion and no science can exlpain everything or provide enough evidence to completely satisfy me so I sit in the middle, the "I dont know" section.

However I do invite all the Mormons and Jehovahs I get at my house in to discuss religion and theology becuase most of them are nice and its good to have an argument for fun
No, Jesussaves was a puppet nation I used to say things I knew to be wrong in order to provoke violent disagreements which made me laugh.

Sadly I dont doubt the truth of these photos, American soldiers have a less than imrpessive record in dealing with civillian populations. More disturbing than these images are those of the babies effected by the radiation from DUP shells the American forces use.
~SNIP~
GET OVER THE LIES! Jesus christ, go do some research, and quit watching the stupid flash movies and looking at the biased ass peace hippy sites. DU DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT emit "deadly radiation" like they claim!


Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.
A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.


Absorption of depleted uranium

About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.




Did you ever hear of lead poisoning, by the way?

GET OVER THE LIES! Jesus christ, go do some research, and quit watching the stupid flash movies and looking at the biased ass peace hippy sites. DU DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT emit "deadly radiation" like they claim!
It's not much more radioactive than gas lamp mantles, and less toxic than some ingredients in those mantles. We must ban the use of gas powered lights!

Then I'll assume you didn't take any chemistry classes.

Not in the final year but my mate did and I have made explosives with him. So I do have vague idea about things.

Negative, my words-made-of-fog friend. This is the report of Giuliana Sgrena, the italian journalist shot by americans when tried to escape from her kidnappers. She swore revenge telling everything she knew, and she begun saying that she had seen so many things that americans wanted her dead. Now this is her testimony, her work, and her proofs about that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are the beginning and not the end.

Yet another individual with an agenda....I mean hell you can't get much revenge by telling the truth and stating facts, so make some up right? Typical journalistic Eurotrash crap.

.....

That was rather long-winded, don't you think? Especially something that, in the end, is just a diatribe attempting to discredit a source and lend credibility to your POV. This read like most other "media" coverage of the war. And, you have to know that the military investigating itself is laughable at best. The only time I've seen good investigation by the military against its own is in the McDonald case, and even that too ten years to even prosecute.

GET OVER THE LIES! Jesus christ, go do some research, and quit watching the stupid flash movies and looking at the biased ass peace hippy sites. DU DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT emit "deadly radiation" like they claim!

Well I have read many conflicting reports.

Not in the final year but my mate did and I have made explosives with him. So I do have vague idea about things.
I've made homemade blackpowder for firecrackers when I was ten. It doesn't take much of a background in chemistry to make something explode.

That was rather long-winded, don't you think? Especially something that, in the end, is just a diatribe attempting to discredit a source and lend credibility to your POV. This read like most other "media" coverage of the war. And, you have to know that the military investigating itself is laughable at best. The only time I've seen good investigation by the military against its own is in the McDonald case, and even that too ten years to even prosecute.

The reporters work for different news agencies. And they were the ones to discredit the ex-marine.

I get it - the media is only credible in your eyes if it's saying something bad about the military. Got it.

Well I have read many conflicting reports.
Tell ya what. When a website that is dedicated to the anti-war movement says one thing, and the World Health Organization contradicts it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whats true.

Look im going to leave now... I've said what i want to say and this is now going in circles. Your welcome to your opinoins but I still cant see how civillian deaths in Iraq are justified, especially in relation to some of the issues I have raised. Also no one mentioned who my founding father quote came from. Thanks for the argument and goodnight.

Yet another individual with an agenda....I mean hell you can't get much revenge by telling the truth and stating facts, so make some up right? Typical journalistic Eurotrash crap.

Of course New York Times, called "liar" by their own readers, is a good source. Like all the american media, who SHUT UP and pledge the OILgarchy. Do you like it most, or the same that bashing a land of brotherhood you know nothing about?

Just thought I'd let me little Loco spanish friend and his Aussie playmate know that I was leaving for work. Don't fret little fellas, I'll be back to argue some more with you tomorrow, just didn't want you to think I'd run off to hide or something. :D

The reporters work for different news agencies. And they were the ones to discredit the ex-marine.

I get it - the media is only credible in your eyes if it's saying something bad about the military. Got it.

No, you don't "got it", I come from a family with a loooong history of military service. And, it bothers me when soldiers do psycho crap. They are the one's doing bad things for the military. And, if the media does their job properly, we hear about it. How does it become the media's fault when soldiers are the ones actually doing the killing? This didn't discredit anyone IMO, it was full of predjudiced information specifically designed to make one person look suspicious. There wasn't anything in there that I could latch onto.

Just thought I'd let me little Loco spanish friend and his Aussie playmate know that I was leaving for work. Don't fret little fellas, I'll be back to argue some more with you tomorrow, just didn't want you to think I'd run off to hide or something. :D

Nah, I'd suppose you were going to kill some american natives, or launch a nuke somewhere...

Frightening would be if you knew what is the real world...

No, you don't "got it", I come from a family with a loooong history of military service. And, it bothers me when soldiers do psycho crap. They are the one's doing bad things for the military. And, if the media does their job properly, we hear about it. How does it become the media's fault when soldiers are the ones actually doing the killing? This didn't discredit anyone IMO, it was full of predjudiced information specifically designed to make one person look suspicious. There wasn't anything in there that I could latch onto.
I'm talking about this:

Picture of marti

Posted 06 November 2005 04:48 PM
Is Jimmy Massey telling the truth about Iraq?
By Ron Harris
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
11/05/2005

Jimmy Massey former marine staff sergeant says Marines intentionally are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.



WASHINGTON

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey's claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn't.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

"Psychopathic killers"

Massey, 34, of Waynesville, N.C., was with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines based out of Twentynine Palms, Calif. The unit went to the Middle East in January 2003 and participated in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of that year.

Massey was discharged in December 2003, shortly after returning from Iraq due to depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

He began turning up in the press and on broadcasts last spring with stories about military atrocities. Massey's primary thrust has been that Marines from his battalion - some of whom, he told a Minneapolis audience, were "psychopathic killers" - recklessly shot and killed Iraqi civilians, sometimes, he said, upon orders from their commanders. During a hearing in Canada, Massey said, "We deliberately gunned down people who were civilians."

The Marine Corps investigated Massey's claims and said they were "unsubstantiated."

From the beginning, Massey misled reporters.

In early interviews, he told how he had lost his job at a furniture store because of his anti-war activities. But when asked about the incident in an interview Oct. 19 with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he had quit his job but never had felt pressure to leave.

"I left on good terms," he said.

He also backtracked from allegations he made in a May 2004 radio interview and elsewhere that he had seen a tractor-trailer filled with the bodies of Iraqi civilians when Marines entered an Iraqi military prison outside Baghdad. He said the Iraqis had been killed by American artillery.

He told listeners that the scene was so bad "that the plasma from the body and skin was decomposing and literally oozing out of the crevices of the tractor-trailer bed."

He repeated the story in the Post-Dispatch interview. But when told that the newspaper's photographs and eyewitness reports had identified the trailer contents as all men, mostly in uniform, Massey admitted that he had never seen the bodies.

Instead, he said, he received his information from "intelligence reports." When asked if those reports were official documents, he answered, "No, that's what the other Marines told me."

Changing stories

The details of Massey's stories changed repeatedly.

For example, he almost always told his audiences and interviewers of an event he said he'd never forget: Marines in his unit shooting four civilian Iraqis in red Kia automobile.

In some accounts, Massey said Marines fired at the vehicle after it failed to stop at a checkpoint. In another version, he said the Marines stormed the car.

Sometimes he said three of the men were killed immediately while the fourth was wounded and covered in blood; sometimes he said the fourth man was "miraculously unscathed."

Sometimes he said the Marines left the three men on the side of the road to die without medical treatment while the fourth man exclaimed: "Why did you shoot my brother?" In other versions, he said the man made the statement as medical personnel were attempting to treat the three other men, or as the survivor sat near the car, or to Massey personally.

There is no evidence that any of the versions occurred.

In another story that Massey often tells, he and other Marines in his platoon fired upon a group of innocent demonstrators shortly after they arrived in Baghdad. Massey said that the demonstrators were protesting the Marines' presence, holding signs in English and Arabic.

The Marines heard a shot, Massey said, and in panic began firing into the demonstrators.

In some versions, the demonstrators were near a checkpoint. In other versions, they were outside a prison on a road about 200 meters away, or anywhere from 5 to 15 miles from Baghdad International Airport.

Massey told a version of the story before an immigration hearing in December in support of an American soldier trying to flee to Canada. Then, Massey said he and the Marines killed four of the demonstrators. In other interviews, he said the Marines shot at 10 demonstrators and killed all of them but one, whom he let crawl away.

In interviews with more than a dozen Marines and journalists who were in the military complex that morning, none can recall such an incident.

They say that during the first week to two weeks inside Baghdad, they never saw any protesters.

Ron Haviv, an independent photographer embedded with the unit, said he never saw any protesters or demonstrators, with or without signs.

"Basically, the only people who were on the streets in the first week were there to loot," said Haviv, who has covered conflicts across the globe, including the first Gulf War, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Russia.

Lt. Kevin Shea, the commander of Massey's platoon, recalls that on the morning after they arrived, about 20 Iraqis from a nearby community did approach the Marines to ask what was happening. Shea said that he had explained what the Marines were doing and that the Iraqis had gone back to their homes.

Civilians shot

The Marine Corps readily admits that some of its men shot civilians, but not intentionally, they said. The Post-Dispatch reported on the second day of the war that Marines in one battalion had mistakenly shot and killed members of a British-based television network while shooting at Iraqi attackers.

When Marines moved into Baghdad a month later, the Post-Dispatch reported two separate automobile-related incidents in which Marines from Massey's battalion inadvertently shot and wounded 12 civilians. All of the passengers survived after treatment by medical personnel.

In a fourth incident, Maj. Dan Schmitt said, Marines shot "what we believe to be a non-combatant" because when the Marines raised their arms in a signal to stop, the vehicle continued moving quickly at them.

An Iraqi doctor who helped treat the wounded passengers told them that they needed to use another hand signal because they one they were using indicated solidarity, not stop.

But none of the five journalists who covered the battalion said they saw reckless or indiscriminate shooting of civilians by Marines, as Massey has claimed. Nor did any of the Marines or Navy corpsmen who served with Massey and were interviewed for this story.

One of the checkpoint shootings is apparently the basis for one of most poignant recollections claimed by Massey in numerous speeches and interviews: The shooting of a 4-year-old girl in the head.

While touring with Sheehan in Montgomery, Ala., he told of seeing the girl's body. "You can't take it back," he said, according to the local newspaper.

But in the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey admitted that he never had seen the girl.

"Lima Company was involved in a shooting at a checkpoint," he said. "My platoon was ordered to another area before the victims were removed from the car. The other Marines told me that a 4-year-old girl had killed."

Girls unharmed

No 4-year-old died in the incident or was even wounded, according to witnesses including a Post-Dispatch photographer at the scene who filed photos of the incident that were published in the newspaper.

Two women and two girls were in the car that the Marines shot when it failed to stop at a checkpoint and continued to approach the Marines at high speed, said Maj. George Schreffler, then the commanding officer of Lima Company. Schreffler was there at the time.

Petty Officer Justin Purviance, who treated them, said the two women were wounded but survived. The girls were unharmed, he said.

In other speeches, Massey has said he personally shot a 6-year-old child. In some versions, the child was a boy; at other times, a girl.

"How is a 6-year-old child with a bullet in his head a terrorist, because that is the youngest I killed," Massey told a Cornell University audience in March. In a speech in April in Springfield, Vt., he said: "That's war: a 6-year-old girl with a bullet hole in her head at an American checkpoint."

In a speech in Syracuse in March, the Post Standard newspaper quoted him as saying, "The reason the Marines teach you discipline . . . is so that you can confront the enemy and kill him. . . . Or so you can put a bullet into a 6-year-old, which is what I did. "

In the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he never personally had shot a child.

"I meant that's what my unit did," he said.

He could not provide details.

Nor could he name any Marine who could corroborate any of his stories.

"Admitting guilt is a hard thing to do," he said.

Of course New York Times, called "liar" by their own readers, is a good source. Like all the american media, who SHUT UP and pledge the OILgarchy. Do you like it most, or the same that bashing a land of brotherhood you know nothing about?


Which is probably why i go to independant news groups from other parts of the world for the news.

Although i havent been reading the news for a few weeks as i am busy getting my stuff together to pay off the school...of which i owe money to.

Frightening would be if you knew what is the real world...
Oh? You mean like YOU do? ROFLMFAO!!!!

Aplastaland: Come back when you learn to not post obscene pics after I removed them. Some of those articles, of which I removed, had even more horrible pictures. 2-Day Forumban

You're an unfeeling, nationalist asshole.

I must decline your offer. Mostly because I'm not an unfeeling, nationalist, racist asshole.

If you don't have anything appropriate to say, you shouldn't post at all, so knock it off with the attacks.

Whatever... my evidence stands though... and i would prefer UN sources to wikepedia, which is not exactly overly accademic.

Excuse me, but the relivant treaty has been posted twice already. You seem to have failed to read it. In no part does it outlaw the use of white phosphorus. It restricts it, yes. But such weapons are clearly allowed.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III),
1342 U.N.T.S. 171, 19 I.L.M. 1534, entered into force Dec. 2, 1983.

Article 1

Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any

concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2

Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.