NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a while Ago I whtached a Documentry on, The battle of Fallujah. while the documetry (in my opion) was very extremly baised (libraly), it brought up a somthig that I had't herd before, That US troops had use chemical weapons (white phosphorus to be exacte) agints Iraqi Insergants.
So my question is, dose ay one have some nonbaised Sources on this?

Thanks in advanced:D

I think I vaguelue remember seeing a video of them using it on a bunch of houses in Fallujah. It might be on google video.

Just a while Ago I whtached a Documentry on, The battle of Fallujah. while the documetry (in my opion) was very extremly baised (libraly), it brought up a somthig that I had't herd before, That US troops had use chemical weapons (white phosphorus to be exacte) agints Iraqi Insergants.
So my question is, dose ay one have some nonbaised Sources on this?

Thanks in advanced:D
Well firstly, your spelling needs attention. Secondly, yes they did use it, and they admitted as much themselves. Thirdly, NSGeneral has already discussed the issue at length. The debate is not on whether they used it, but whether they used it in areas in which there were civilians.

By the same token - did you hear about the bombing run in Afghanistan? Apparently a few Taliban fighters (well, more than 50 I believe) retreated into a village and fortified it, with the civilians still there.
US Solution? Annihilate the whole village!

Just a while Ago I whtached a Documentry on, The battle of Fallujah. while the documetry (in my opion) was very extremly baised (libraly), it brought up a somthig that I had't herd before, That US troops had use chemical weapons (white phosphorus to be exacte) agints Iraqi Insergants.
So my question is, dose ay one have some nonbaised Sources on this?

Thanks in advanced:D


How would you like your insurgent? Our original raw recipe, or the special house exra crispy?

Well firstly, your spelling needs attention. Secondly, yes they did use it, and they admitted as much themselves. Thirdly, NSGeneral has already discussed the issue at length. The debate is not on whether they used it, but whether they used it in areas in which there were civilians.

By the same token - did you hear about the bombing run in Afghanistan? Apparently a few Taliban fighters (well, more than 50 I believe) retreated into a village and fortified it, with the civilians still there.
US Solution? Annihilate the whole village!

It takes a Kerry to raze a village :D

Well..did it work?

They did use white phosphurus. It's a grey area though. Against combatants it is a chemical weapon, but the geneva convention does allow for it to be used in battle as a way of temporarily blinding troops or marking areas of the battlefield or something like that. The US forces claimed the former, but there seemed to many insurgents with white phosphorus injuries.

Looks like I'm out of date. Here's a beeb article saying the Pentagon admitted to using White phosphorus as an incinedary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

They did use white phosphurus. It's a grey area though. Against combatants it is a chemical weapon, but the geneva convention does allow for it to be used in battle as a way of temporarily blinding troops or marking areas of the battlefield or something like that. The US forces claimed the former, but there seemed to many insurgents with white phosphorus injuries.

Looks like I'm out of date. Here's a beeb article saying the Pentagon admitted to using White phosphorus as an incinedary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

What as in 500lb bombs or in 60mm/81mm/40 mm m203s? That would be a HORRIBLE pyschological weapon though-A bunch of those guys in a building screaming allahu ackbar at guys outside, toss in a WP illuminating round...cooked to a crisp...gotta be demoralising.

...gotta be demoralising.
Also slightly illegal, if memory serves.

Also slightly illegal, if memory serves.Yep, the Pentagon claimed to be using it for the smoke and the light to be demoralising. Using it against people is illegal. As it says so in the article.

It didn't mention what size though, just they were 'munitions. Very ambiguous.

Well firstly, your spelling needs attention. Secondly, yes they did use it, and they admitted as much themselves. Thirdly, NSGeneral has already discussed the issue at length. The debate is not on whether they used it, but whether they used it in areas in which there were civilians.

By the same token - did you hear about the bombing run in Afghanistan? Apparently a few Taliban fighters (well, more than 50 I believe) retreated into a village and fortified it, with the civilians still there.
US Solution? Annihilate the whole village!

1. Yeah, sorry about that I was typing rather fast and skipped the entire spell checking process together.

2. Really, I thought they had denied the use of Chemical weapons in that battle (I didn’t follow it very closely considering the lack of coverage)

3. Hello Vietnam?

Annhilating whole villages? It's the only way to go! Reming you of the Red Army in WWII? Anyone?

It takes a Kerry to raze a village :D



Not a bad one liner. Will have to remember that one.

Well..did it work?
Depends on what you mean by "work".

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wotali0523,0,4499246.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5003478.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196410,00.html

Like Fox's coverage, by the way. You can always count on them...:rolleyes:

I've got a BBC documentary on fallujah..some BS thrown in for PCness...but other than that, a good watch.

Also slightly illegal, if memory serves.

It's also illegal to use the m2 .50 on people-it can only be used on equipment, etc. However to get around that you are trying to destroy the equipment the soldier is carrying.

WP could be used to "illuminate" the inside of buildings where hadjis were heard.

"Yeah sarge, couldn't see in the building where the hadjis were, threw in a WP grenade. Sucks the hadjis were in the same room too!"

Also slightly illegal, if memory serves.

Since when has that deterred anybody in war

I guess the village has been "liberated"...

Depends on what you mean by "work".

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wotali0523,0,4499246.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5003478.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196410,00.html

Like Fox's coverage, by the way. You can always count on them...:rolleyes:

Looks like a bad day to be a taliban sympathiser, and an even worse day to be a hadji in either iraqi or afghani flavors.

Looks like a bad day to be a taliban sympathiser, and an even worse day to be a hadji in either iraqi or afghani flavors.
Not a good day to be a civilian bystander either.

Not a good day to be a civilian bystander either.

Not quite a civilian bystander.


The governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khalid, said at least 16 civilians had been killed in the attack with another 16 civilians wounded.

"These sort of accidents happen during fighting, especially when the Taliban are hiding in homes," he told reporters. "I urge people not to give shelter to the Taliban."

U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins said, "It's common that the enemy fights in close to civilians as a means to protect its own forces.

WA bunch of those guys in a building screaming allahu ackbar at guys outside, toss in a WP illuminating round...cooked to a crisp....

WP could be used to "illuminate" the inside of buildings where hadjis were heard.

"Yeah sarge, couldn't see in the building where the hadjis were, threw in a WP grenade. Sucks the hadjis were in the same room too!"

Your callousness, ignorance and racism is sickening.

And Americans wonder why they have a bad image abroad.

Not quite a civilian bystander.
Well, the difference is between allowing people to come into your house to fight a battle, and the people just barging in swinging their guns in your face.

The latter seems to be the version the BBC reports, as opposed to your Fox-snippet.
One said Taleban fighters had taken control of his house to launch missile attacks from the roof, and that many of his family members had died in the raid.

"They started to bomb our village at midnight and continued up to this morning," another eyewitness, Attah Mohammad, told the AFP news agency.

"Helicopters bombed the madrassa and some of the Taleban ran from there and into people's homes," another man, Haji Ikhlaf, told the Associated Press.

"Then those homes were bombed."

The US military put the number of confirmed Taleban deaths at 20, with possibly another 60 killed.

It says it is aware of reports of civilian casualties and is investigating.

In other words, the BBC used Associated Press as source, Fox the US Military.

Well, the difference is between allowing people to come into your house to fight a battle, and the people just barging in swinging their guns in your face.

The latter seems to be the version the BBC reports, as opposed to your Fox-snippet.


In other words, the BBC used Associated Press as source, Fox the US Military.

I would beleive that the fox report would be more accurate-it's coming directly from the army.


Your callousness, ignorance and racism is sickening.

And Americans wonder why they have a bad image abroad.

? Racism? I didn't even mention race. Hadji? That's arabic (I've been told) for "Slave to allah". The Iraqi police consider it a compliment to be called a hadji, because they are primarily muslim. However, Hadji is also used as a term of endearment to those "masters"of urban warfare (Who wear addidas sneakers and momma's towels on their heads), insurgents.

I would beleive that the fox report would be more accurate-it's coming directly from the army.
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Hadji? That's arabic (I've been told) for "Slave to allah".
You've been told wrong. The Hadj is the pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim is supposed to make - a Hadji is a person taking that journey.

That US Forces use the word to mean Iraqis just shows that they have no business being there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif


You've been told wrong. The Hadj is the pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim is supposed to make - a Hadji is a person taking that journey.

That US Forces use the word to mean Iraqis just shows that they have no business being there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji

Well, I guess I'm back to calling them ragheads. Hadjis does roll off the tongue though, I'll keep that one around....

There's no way calling them ragheads is incorrect......

Well, I guess I'm back to calling them ragheads.
You revel in being a fool don't you.

Well, I guess I'm back to calling them ragheads. Hadjis does roll off the tongue though, I'll keep that one around....

There's no way calling them ragheads is incorrect......
Why don't you go ahead and call them camel-fuckers and sandniggers while you're at it?
I really do not see any need why people of different ethnic background should be looked down upon, especially not with your kind of attitude and racial slurs.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Didn't anyone teach ya manners?

You revel in being a fool don't you.

I revel in knowing what is right, yes.

Although if you brand me a fool....not my fault.

Why don't you go ahead and call them camel-fuckers and sandniggers while you're at it?
I really do not see any need why people of different ethnic background should be looked down upon, especially not with your kind of attitude and racial slurs.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Didn't anyone teach ya manners?

If we're talking about insurgents and terrorists, I don't care what they are called. YOu seem to think I would call every Arab a raghead or hadji. Again I say this is not because of their ETHNIC background as I said previously, but it's because of their CHOSEN OCCUPATION-TERRORIST.

That is all, I've laid it out clearly and if you still don't see my quarrel is with terrorists then you are truly hopeless and blind.

I revel in knowing what is right, yes.

Although if you brand me a fool....not my fault.
That doesn't have anything to do with branding you a fool.

Taking a look at your posts here or at your nation's motto "U.S. Armed Forces are Travel agents to allah." is more than enough.

Someone once told me Americans call themselves "Yee-haws".
Apparantly the term means "slave to idiocy" and they take much pride in it.
I once had an uncle who had an ex-girlfriend whose plumber once shot an American so I know.

Good lord! I leave for two hours and my thread Turns into this! *sigh* well I got what I wanted.

Someone once told me Americans call themselves "Yee-haws".
Apparantly the term means "slave to idiocy" and they take much pride in it.
I once had an uncle who had an ex-girlfriend whose plumber once shot an American so I know.

Really I thought we were called "Yankees", oh well...

I blame the Atomic bomb, we may have dropped on the Japanese but it did something to us.

If we're talking about insurgents and terrorists, I don't care what they are called. YOu seem to think I would call every Arab a raghead or hadji. Again I say this is not because of their ETHNIC background as I said previously, but it's because of their CHOSEN OCCUPATION-TERRORIST.

That is all, I've laid it out clearly and if you still don't see my quarrel is with terrorists then you are truly hopeless and blind.

And of course, everyone fighting us in iraq is a terrorist.

And of course, everyone fighting us in iraq is a terrorist.

Yep.

And of course, everyone fighting us in iraq is a terrorist.

Oh come on, of course they are. They chose to be born there, after all, what more evidence do you need?

I would beleive that the fox report would be more accurate-it's coming directly from the army.
Well. of course. The US military is well-known for it's impartial news reporting, isn't it?
? Racism? I didn't even mention race. Hadji? That's arabic (I've been told) for "Slave to allah". The Iraqi police consider it a compliment to be called a hadji, because they are primarily muslim. However, Hadji is also used as a term of endearment to those "masters"of urban warfare (Who wear addidas sneakers and momma's towels on their heads), insurgents.
I hardly think any term which has the word "Slave" in it's meaning can be considered a compliment.
Term of endearment? You mean like calling a black man Uncle Tom is a term of endearment? Feel free to do so, btw.


DesignatedMarksman - proud citizen of the country Dumbfuckistan, home of the jackass

It's also illegal to use the m2 .50 on people-it can only be used on equipment, etc. However to get around that you are trying to destroy the equipment the soldier is carrying.

I could have swore that in my pre-deployment briefings that they said it was 20mm and above that was against the rules to use on personnel.

Anyway, Designatedmarksmen (interesting choice of name, what's your MOS?) you need to take off your rose colored glasses. I love the Army dearly, but they do some fucked up shit on occaision. You're wrapping yourself up in a nice little cocoon made of US flags, Fox News, and the Army Times. Someday if some very unpleasant things make it through that cocoon, you're in for a very rude awakening.

ok, this question is easy, combat IS NOT CLEAN! its dirty, bloody and horrible! any VET will tell you, your going to use whatever you can to stay alive and win, if you have nothing left but a WP grenade and a few guys are comming as you with AK's then you're not gonna care about the fucking geneva convention and proper edicate and where you place your pronouns, your gonna use it to kill them and come home alive.:headbang:

ok, this question is easy, combat IS NOT CLEAN! its dirty, bloody and horrible! any VET will tell you, your going to use whatever you can to stay alive and win, if you have nothing left but a WP grenade and a few guys are comming as you with AK's then you're not gonna care about the fucking geneva convention and proper edicate and where you place your pronouns, your gonna use it to kill them and come home alive.:headbang:

I suppose that is why depleted Uranium rounds were also used.:rolleyes:

ok, this question is easy, combat IS NOT CLEAN! its dirty, bloody and horrible! any VET will tell you, your going to use whatever you can to stay alive and win, if you have nothing left but a WP grenade and a few guys are comming as you with AK's then you're not gonna care about the fucking geneva convention and proper edicate and where you place your pronouns, your gonna use it to kill them and come home alive.:headbang:

That is true, as the saying goes, "The only thing fair in a fight is me winning", however the question is why would they even have the WP in the first place? In a crowded environment like Fallujah the only real use for WP is as an incendiary, and again in a crowded area like that anyone using it will know for certain that it's going to do some nasty things to someone.

Also, why do they need an incendiary? If they need to engage someone in a building 120mm or 25mm HEAT or HE (respectively) work quite well. At least, that's how we did things in the cavalry.

Just a while Ago I whtached a Documentry on, The battle of Fallujah. while the documetry (in my opion) was very extremly baised (libraly), it brought up a somthig that I had't herd before, That US troops had use chemical weapons (white phosphorus to be exacte) agints Iraqi Insergants.
So my question is, dose ay one have some nonbaised Sources on this?

Thanks in advanced:D
White phosphorous grenades are nothing new. We used them in Vietnam. They're not banned by International treaties. Get over it.

They did use white phosphurus. It's a grey area though. Against combatants it is a chemical weapon, but the geneva convention does allow for it to be used in battle as a way of temporarily blinding troops or marking areas of the battlefield or something like that. The US forces claimed the former, but there seemed to many insurgents with white phosphorus injuries.

Looks like I'm out of date. Here's a beeb article saying the Pentagon admitted to using White phosphorus as an incinedary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm


i am ambivalent on this,as my son is going there,and i would have preferred they dropped a 2000 pound bomb on the place..issue solved,but it is my understanding we wanted to minimise civilian casualties.

i know it sucks that innocents get killed,but if we called in an airstrike with f-18's and dropped some real ordanance on the location,we would have killed alot more innocents...like in ww2,with no threat to our own..period.

we use snake(wp) to flush out people hiding in holes and rooms....unpleasant ...yes...but far less brutal then dropping a 2000 pound bomb on them.

it is my understanding(all the pentagon double talk aside)that wp is most unpleasant..like tear gas...and it flushes out the offenders into the open where we can humanely kill them..and seperate the non coms from the combatants.
por choice of words i admit...but then again..it is war.

we could level the place like dresden or london...but we dont want to indiscrimmanately kill people.


wp seemed like a good alternative to leveling the place.

war is a horror show,and you may take me to task for saying this,but would it not be more humane(in a war situation)to use wp to flush out the enemy and hurt a few civilians...or just flatten the place and kill everyone?

which we all know we could do.

if i remember the story correctly...the enemy was hiding in a hospital amongst the innocents...so should we let our boys get shot trying to take the place...or drop a 2000 pounder and end it..or shoot some wp in there and make em all come out..and then kill the enemy?

you do realise it is a war!

if you forgot...and your all hating america...remember who is blowing up markets full of women and children....ok...the enemy is,and yes we kill innocents...but only because they use the innocents as shields...so what are we to do?

we could blast it off the map,but we dont....we try to minimise civilian casualties,they try to kill innocents,and we are the bad guys?

go relearn logic please.

oh well,i am sure my point is falling on deaf ears here...cause no matter what...america is bad,and the insurgent blowing up kids is a freedom fighter.

oh...everyone forget about saddam gassing the iraniens and kurds?(yes we gave him the gas...so did the russians.)not the point...we try to minimize casualties...they try to max them...and with willlfill disregard towards women and children.

you can hate bush all day...i do...but the fact is...we are trying to do right thee...they are killing innocents,but you focus on us no matter how hard we try to not hurt innocents,and they go out of their way to kill innocents....yea..we are the bad ones there...pleeeeeaaase

Just a while Ago I whtached a Documentry on, The battle of Fallujah. while the documetry (in my opion) was very extremly baised (libraly), it brought up a somthig that I had't herd before, That US troops had use chemical weapons (white phosphorus to be exacte) agints Iraqi Insergants.
So my question is, dose ay one have some nonbaised Sources on this?

Thanks in advanced:D


Oh dear Flying Spaghetti Monster! Not this one again. :headbang:

The long and the short of it is this:

1) The US used WP munitions in Fallujah.
2) WP is not covered by treaty as a chemical munition, but as a incendiary. However the US is not a signatory.
3) There are questions regarding the chemical effects of WP.
4) There are questions regarding the deployment of incendiary weapons in Fallujah.


(Wallonochia, AFAIK you are correct on the .50 cal. That's a common urban/military myth. I am not sure, but I suspect what you were told about the 20mm is also a myth.)

(Wallonochia, AFAIK you are correct on the .50 cal. That's a common urban/military myth. I am not sure, but I suspect what you were told about the 20mm is also a myth.)

I dunno, they specifically told us we weren't supposed to shoot dismounts with the 25mm on the Bradleys, we were supposed to use the coax for that.

Secret aj man:

You make the common mistake of thinking that because someone criticizes US policy in some fashion that they're saying whoever the US is fighting is right, and that they hate America. We know that the bad guys are a raging pack of assholes, the problem is that we're supposed to be the good guys.

Also, please don't try to justify anything the US does by saying "Well, Saddam did worse." We're supposed to maintain ourselves to a high enough moral standard that any such comparison should be insulting.

I dunno, they specifically told us we weren't supposed to shoot dismounts with the 25mm on the Bradleys, we were supposed to use the coax for that.

Oh, I'm not doubting that at all. I just suspect the briefers bought into the myth (I've heard of the myth being propogated by various people in authority who should know better from others) or wanted to discourage the 25mm for whatever reasons.

Oh, I'm not doubting that at all. I just suspect the briefers bought into the myth (I've heard of the myth being propogated by various people in authority who should know better from others) or wanted to discourage the 25mm for whatever reasons.

That's quite possible.

I dunno, they specifically told us we weren't supposed to shoot dismounts with the 25mm on the Bradleys, we were supposed to use the coax for that.

Secret aj man:

You make the common mistake of thinking that because someone criticizes US policy in some fashion that they're saying whoever the US is fighting is right, and that they hate America. We know that the bad guys are a raging pack of assholes, the problem is that we're supposed to be the good guys.

Also, please don't try to justify anything the US does by saying "Well, Saddam did worse." We're supposed to maintain ourselves to a high enough moral standard that any such comparison should be insulting.


point taken.

i just get so sick of the incessant america bashing,and the overlooking of innocent kids killed intentionally...something we as a country/power would never condone...and they use as a "tool" my emotions overtake my sence of reason.

good point nonetheless.