2
   

U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 06:37 am
englishmajor wrote:
oralloy, you have become THEM!


Not really. For instance, we don't target civilians; they do.



englishmajor wrote:
Bad people who want to harm us? Paranoia.


Go introduce yourself to a member of al-Qa'ida and see how long it takes before he cuts off your head with a dull knife and posts the video of his act on the internet.



englishmajor wrote:
Suggest you see a shrink asap.


No thank you.



englishmajor wrote:
Your comments are amazingly childish and Bushist. Torturing people and killing will eliminate - what?


It will eliminate those who wish to harm us, eventually.



englishmajor wrote:
Violence begets violence.


Not when there is only one side left alive.



englishmajor wrote:
Idiot.


You really shouldn't go around making false allegations of childishness when you act so childish yourself.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 06:56 am
oralloy wrote:
Here is an article about the thermobaric bazooka the Marines used at Fallujah:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw-ne.htm

Quote:
The High Impulse Thermobaric [HIT] technology achieves higher pressure, temperature and duration levels than the regular SMAW warhead. The explosive fill material is normally a slurry of reactive metal and liquid fuels, optimized for enclosed spaces.

. . . .

In July 2005, an article in the Marine Corps Gazette concluded that it had been highly effective in the November 2004 battle for Fallujah. , edition: "Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives... all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned. ... SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms. ... Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."



Found a couple pictures of the explosions from a thermobaric bazooka:

http://www.armada.ch/03-4/bilder/001.jpg
http://www.defensetech.org/images/smaw-ne%20sequence.JPG

The articles are less informative, but this is where the pictures came from:

http://www.armada.ch/03-4/001.cfm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 07:58 am
It really does not matter if they actually set out to target civilians, if we know there are civilians in the area and use deadly weapons, they are dead or severely wounded just the same as if we set out to target them.

As for this use of such deadly weapons having the effect of beating the insurgency, it don't seem to be happening yet. More insurgents just seem to keep springing up to replace the ones we manage to kill.

I don't pretend to know the answer, like I have said before it is frankly over my head to know whether we should stay or go. But I think it is better to admit the truth about how things really are than to cover it up in a misguided attempt to be loyal to 'America' at all cost. The truth is that we were pushed into this war by the administration based on stretched information of which they knew to be in doubt at the time they were saying it to us, then we were mislead about how easy it was going to be and since then they have been puffing up the good news in order to fool the America public into thinking it is going much better than what the 'MSM' media is portraying it.

We are not there, we can only form our opinions based on what people say who have been there or the administration and when people don't tell the whole truth, it is a terrible betrayal of trust to the America people. IMO the American people have been betrayed by the Bush administration. Everything they have said regarding this war has turned out to be false, so why should anyone take their word now about anything regarding the Iraq war or anything connected to it?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:13 am
This, on the other hand, is an informative article on the subject of thermobaric explosives:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.html
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:23 am
revel wrote:
It really does not matter if they actually set out to target civilians, if we know there are civilians in the area and use deadly weapons, they are dead or severely wounded just the same as if we set out to target them.


It matters on a moral and legal level.



revel wrote:
As for this use of such deadly weapons having the effect of beating the insurgency, it don't seem to be happening yet. More insurgents just seem to keep springing up to replace the ones we manage to kill.


The weapons are for killing all the terrorists.

Beating an insurgency takes time and patience.



revel wrote:
I don't pretend to know the answer, like I have said before it is frankly over my head to know whether we should stay or go. But I think it is better to admit the truth about how things really are than to cover it up in a misguided attempt to be loyal to 'America' at all cost. The truth is that we were pushed into this war by the administration based on stretched information of which they knew to be in doubt at the time they were saying it to us,


They stretched the claim regarding contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, but the intelligence really did say that Saddam had WMDs.



revel wrote:
then we were mislead about how easy it was going to be


As wars go, it seems pretty easy.



revel wrote:
and since then they have been puffing up the good news in order to fool the America public into thinking it is going much better than what the 'MSM' media is portraying it.


I imagine it frustrates them that the media always focuses on the negative. But that is just the nature of the news business. "If it bleeds it leads."



revel wrote:
IMO the American people have been betrayed by the Bush administration. Everything they have said regarding this war has turned out to be false, so why should anyone take their word now about anything regarding the Iraq war or anything connected to it?


I don't feel betrayed. On the other hand, I'm not taking Bush's word on anything.

I don't pay much attention to the war right now, since there isn't much interesting going on over there.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 09:05 am
Quote:
The weapons are for killing all the terrorists.

Beating an insurgency takes time and patience.


Semantics

Quote:
They stretched the claim regarding contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, but the intelligence really did say that Saddam had WMDs.


Quote:
The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.
It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2970064.stm

Quote:
As wars go, it seems pretty easy.


Tell that to all the 2000 plus US casualties incurred thus far not mention the uncounted Iraqi causalities.

Quote:
I imagine it frustrates them that the media always focuses on the negative. But that is just the nature of the news business. "If it bleeds it leads."


There has been an awful lot of bleeding to report.

Quote:
I don't feel betrayed. On the other hand, I'm not taking Bush's word on anything.

I don't pay much attention to the war right now, since there isn't much interesting going on over there.


Words fail me in light of this shallow statement.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:07 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
The weapons are for killing all the terrorists.

Beating an insurgency takes time and patience.


Semantics


There is quite a difference between a Ba'athist insurgent in Iraq, and an Islamist terrorist who could be anywhere in the world.



revel wrote:
Quote:
The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.
It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.


The CIA didn't seem to have much complaint about the WMD claims.



revel wrote:
Quote:
As wars go, it seems pretty easy.


Tell that to all the 2000 plus US casualties incurred thus far not mention the uncounted Iraqi causalities.


I think that was about a week's worth of fatalities in WWII.



revel wrote:
Quote:
I don't pay much attention to the war right now, since there isn't much interesting going on over there.


Words fail me in light of this shallow statement.


What's shallow? If you want me to pay attention, have them do something interesting over there.

Fallujah was interesting. I'll pay attention if we do another Fallujah.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:56 am
oralloy wrote:
revel wrote:
Quote:
The weapons are for killing all the terrorists.

Beating an insurgency takes time and patience.


Semantics


There is quite a difference between a Ba'athist insurgent in Iraq, and an Islamist terrorist who could be anywhere in the world.

(me in dark red)

Are you saying we never use weapons on Iraqi insurgents? If we do then your difference is a difference without distinction which makes it an exercise in semantics rather than a real argument.



revel wrote:
Quote:
The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.
It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.


The CIA didn't seem to have much complaint about the WMD claims.

That is a sorry argument; presumably the administration is informed from all branches of intelligence including the Pentagon. That surely being the case, then their stating without any doubts about the stockpiles of WMD was a stating it more than it was.



revel wrote:
Quote:
As wars go, it seems pretty easy.


Tell that to all the 2000 plus US casualties incurred thus far not mention the uncounted Iraqi causalities.


I think that was about a week's worth of fatalities in WWII.



revel wrote:
Quote:
I don't pay much attention to the war right now, since there isn't much interesting going on over there.


Words fail me in light of this shallow statement.


What's shallow? If you want me to pay attention, have them do something interesting over there.

Fallujah was interesting. I'll pay attention if we do another Fallujah.


I believe these statements speak for themselves and personally I am through arguing with a person with a video game mentality when it comes to life and death to real people
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 12:02 pm
revel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
revel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The weapons are for killing all the terrorists.

Beating an insurgency takes time and patience.


Semantics


There is quite a difference between a Ba'athist insurgent in Iraq, and an Islamist terrorist who could be anywhere in the world.


(me in dark red)

Are you saying we never use weapons on Iraqi insurgents? If we do then your difference is a difference without distinction which makes it an exercise in semantics rather than a real argument.


I am saying that my comment that "we need to use our weapons to kill off those who wish us harm" does not apply to the insurgency.

The Iraqi insurgents are largely Sunnis seeking to regain control over Iraq. Of course we will use weapons against them so long as they are fighting us. But we don't need to exterminate them. If we make peace with them, that is fine.

Groups like al-Qa'ida are a different story. Extermination is the only reasonable option when dealing with them. They need to be caught, tortured, and eradicated.



revel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
revel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.
It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.


The CIA didn't seem to have much complaint about the WMD claims.


That is a sorry argument; presumably the administration is informed from all branches of intelligence including the Pentagon. That surely being the case, then their stating without any doubts about the stockpiles of WMD was a stating it more than it was.


The CIA had the intelligence they wanted to hear, so they chose to believe the CIA.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 01:19 pm
Quote:
The CIA had the intelligence they wanted to hear, so they chose to believe the CIA.


Truer words were never spoken.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 11:21:05