Scotsman: So he is sitting with the hood on because he likes to? Of course he can take it of. But what do you honestly think will happen? The soldiers will say "Well jolly good for him. On time he stopped playing around with that stupid hood"
And Scott: Even if he just blew up USS Theodore Roosevelt he still have some rights.
I don't know who he is. I don't know who is holding him. I don't know what's on his head. I don't know why the kid is there. Your knee jerk anti-american reaction is that the US brute squad threw the rule book out beat and gang raped the man and boy and violated everything ... blah blah blah.
The man in the picture is a detainee who was made to wear the hood (which is a black sandbag) to prevent him from seeing the Coalition base where he was interrogated. If a combatant detainee (as opposed to a civilian) was accidentally released, he could provide intelligence re. the base to the Iraqi military.
The kid in the photograph is the detainee's 4 year old son. He was permitted to hold the child's hand while being escorted to the holding area. Once in the holding area the man was free to remove the hood. Neither his hands nor his feet are restrained.
This is a picture of a POW, and no breach of the Geneva Convention is happening here. On the other hand, the use of napalm by U.S./U.K. troops, and the planned use of calmative gas in combat situations is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention.
The man in the picture is a detainee who was made to wear the hood (which is a black sandbag) to prevent him from seeing the Coalition base where he was interrogated. .....
This is a picture of a POW, and no breach of the Geneva Convention is happening here. On the other hand, the use of napalm by U.S./U.K. troops, and the planned use of calmative gas in combat situations is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention.
weird. i feel funny every time i read your posts and they make perfect sense to me. although i'd still want links to the napalm/gas references.
weird. i feel funny every time i read your posts and they make perfect sense to me.
keep those posts coming.
You were lured into a false sense of security by the reasonable nature of the first part of the post only to brush over the inflammatory last sentence.
If I were Bugs Bunny I would hand you a 6-foot sucker.
What are you implying when you say "naturally" about the Pentagon denying the charges?
Are you saying they are lying?
I find it par-for-the-course with you that you'll state that they used napalm (and even emphasize it) as fact when you have very little backing and lots of counter-evidence.
Re: toxic chemicals.
Well that's naughty. Nice bit of semantic exaggeration. Pepper spray = sarin gas in your mind when the US is involved, eh?
i would guess they're using the term "napalm" loosely.
big fiery explosion=napalm to most people.
knock out gasses are a problem though. if women and children are present, you run into a situation where what it takes to knock out a well-fed, healthy soldier is more gas than it takes to knock out a kid. you can then OD the kid trying to knock out the soldier.
of course, they haven't actually been used yet, so we're talking theoretical here.
What are you implying when you say "naturally" about the Pentagon denying the charges?
Are you saying they are lying?
Well, do you honestly think that the Pentagon is going to publicly admit to using something banned by the U.N.? Naturally, they are going to deny it. I don't recall them being exactly truthful re. Gulf War Syndrome either, despite the overwhelming evidence that many veterans are suffering, and have died of something contracted during the 1991 Gulf war.
Quote:
I find it par-for-the-course with you that you'll state that they used napalm (and even emphasize it) as fact when you have very little backing and lots of counter-evidence.
Can you provide some links for this "counter evidence"? The story came from an embedded journalist who watched the action at Safwan Hill.
Quote:
Re: toxic chemicals.
Well that's naughty. Nice bit of semantic exaggeration. Pepper spray = sarin gas in your mind when the US is involved, eh?
Sarin or dexmeditomide...they are both "nerve gases" of a kind (according to that article anyway). Sure enough, sarin is far more lethal, re. the amount needed to kill a human, but the stuff we are planning on using is pretty lethal too (as witnessed in that Russian theater hold-up last year, 120 killed by the gas...not pepper spray btw). If it kills you, it kills you...sarin ain't going to make you any more dead than benzodiazepines, or whatever else they got in the inventory.
And...it would be sadly ironic if the U.S. would be the one to employ first use of chemical agents against an enemy that we (sup posedly) went to war against because of their alleged hoarding of such.
Well, do you honestly think that the Pentagon is going to publicly admit to using something banned by the U.N.? Naturally, they are going to deny it.
Do you honestly think the benefits of napalm given our current modern technology actually outweighs the very steep political cost of using it?
They admitted using it in 1993. Geneva Conventions passed in 1949. Why lie about it now if you're going to admit using it before?
Quote:
I don't recall them being exactly truthful re. Gulf War Syndrome either, despite the overwhelming evidence that many veterans are suffering, and have died of something contracted during the 1991 Gulf war.
Has the Gulf War Syndrome been linked to something or even been properly diagnosed yet? Or is this more dead-baby-link propaganda?
So your logic is that since the Pentagon has lied before they are lying now?
Quote:
Can you provide some links for this "counter evidence"? The story came from an embedded journalist who watched the action at Safwan Hill.
How does he know it was napalm? I haven't gotten to my Napalm Recognition 101 course here in J-school just yet.
The counter evidence is the Pentagon saying they didn't use it and that they destroyed it in 2001. And a "public ceremony" in April of 2001 in which it was destroyed.
If Blix had been as assumptive with Iraq as you are with the US we'd have been at war a long time ago.
Quote:
Sure enough, sarin is far more lethal, re. the amount needed to kill a human, but the stuff we are planning on using is pretty lethal too (as witnessed in that Russian theater hold-up last year, 120 killed by the gas...not pepper spray btw). If it kills you, it kills you...sarin ain't going to make you any more dead than benzodiazepines, or whatever else they got in the inventory.
We used it in a Russian theater? Crazy. How unilateral of us.
And...it would be sadly ironic if the U.S. would be the one to employ first use of chemical agents against an enemy that we (sup posedly) went to war against because of their alleged hoarding of such.
Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded. His are made to kill, CS and pepper spray are not designed to kill, though they can both be lethal. They only reason there are being considered is to allow US troops to take objectives with as few casualties are possible. A choice between bombing a target and killing everyone inside or trying to incapacitate them with modified Valium and Prozac, the route of incapacitation seems more desireable.
First, the CS gas that the US would/might use are not banned to my knowledge by the geneva conventions, but by the Chemical Weapons Convention. As is pepper spray, also under consideration by the pentagon. Both are considered allowable for domestic riot and hostage situations by western countries, notably Britain, whose military policy would disallow their troops from participating in foreign actions involving the use of calmative gasses.
Neither of these are banned for the same reason as other, far more lethal, chemical weapons are banned. They are included in the ban in order to reduce the chance of the one side using them and the other side retaliating and escalating to full out chemical warfare with truly lethal chemical weapons.
While I would diagree with the US using the weapons for that reason of possible escalation, and because they are banned by the convention, the reasoning would be to save lives. They are being considered for use in human shield situations and for assaults by groundtroops on bunkers. They would allow for human shields to be removed from the equation without as much chance of killing them, in a situation where the shields are being put at risk by the Iraqi henchmen, similar to a hostage situation. This is what Russia tried with their hostage situation, which obviously killed many hostages, but not as many as the hostage takers would have with their bombs and guns. In use in bunker situations, they would allow US group troops to incapacitate enemy soldiers hold up inside in a far less violent or lethal manner. In either of these cases, pepper spray is also being considered, and is also banned.
Edit: I should note, that although I said "are being considered", I don't know that, but I assume that all potentials are being considered.
You were lured into a false sense of security by the reasonable nature of the first part of the post only to brush over the inflammatory last sentence.
= my dogma agrees with the first part so I'll take it at face value, but my dogma doesn't agree with the second part so I'll have to ridicule it.
They admitted using it almost 50 years after it was banned, but a short 10 years after that you think that they wouldn't use it again?
Why would they deny it *this* time? You would have to think they were lying when they said they destroyed whatever they had left in 2001 in a "public ceremony". They admitted to blowing up that bus on the bridge before the media broke it. So it's not like the Pentagon *always* works to deceive the media.
It's certainly not something you can present as fact.
...So it's not like the Pentagon *always* works to deceive the media.
It's certainly not something you can present as fact.
This I definitely agree with. I just think suspicion is OK, especially when dealing with the military. They have an agenda that is outside even political party agendas. Not anything we should trust at face value, or condemn. But we certainly can't afford them silence either.
"They lost all control - screaming, shouting and kicking people," (BBC reporter) Simpson said, adding that US soldiers' fear of snipers led to a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude.
"One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped,"
Comments
Originally posted by Anders the White
Scotsman: So he is sitting with the hood on because he likes to? Of course he can take it of. But what do you honestly think will happen? The soldiers will say "Well jolly good for him. On time he stopped playing around with that stupid hood"
And Scott: Even if he just blew up USS Theodore Roosevelt he still have some rights.
I don't know who he is. I don't know who is holding him. I don't know what's on his head. I don't know why the kid is there. Your knee jerk anti-american reaction is that the US brute squad threw the rule book out beat and gang raped the man and boy and violated everything ... blah blah blah.
Try to be objective just once. Don't assume.
The kid in the photograph is the detainee's 4 year old son. He was permitted to hold the child's hand while being escorted to the holding area. Once in the holding area the man was free to remove the hood. Neither his hands nor his feet are restrained.
This is a picture of a POW, and no breach of the Geneva Convention is happening here. On the other hand, the use of napalm by U.S./U.K. troops, and the planned use of calmative gas in combat situations is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention.
Who still produces napalm?
Originally posted by sammi jo
The man in the picture is a detainee who was made to wear the hood (which is a black sandbag) to prevent him from seeing the Coalition base where he was interrogated. .....
This is a picture of a POW, and no breach of the Geneva Convention is happening here. On the other hand, the use of napalm by U.S./U.K. troops, and the planned use of calmative gas in combat situations is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention.
weird. i feel funny every time i read your posts and they make perfect sense to me. although i'd still want links to the napalm/gas references.
keep those posts coming.
Originally posted by alcimedes
weird. i feel funny every time i read your posts and they make perfect sense to me.
keep those posts coming.
You were lured into a false sense of security by the reasonable nature of the first part of the post only to brush over the inflammatory last sentence.
If I were Bugs Bunny I would hand you a 6-foot sucker.
Originally posted by groverat
Napalm?
Who still produces napalm?
Dow Chemical is/was the main manufacturer. Whether they still make this stuff, who knows...but it looks as though we could well be using it...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...c.irq.savidge/
Although the Pentagon naturally denies the charge:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...9685_db070.htm
This article in the Independent (UK) alleges that the US is preparing to use toxic gasses (chemical weapons?) against Iraq.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=383006
Are you saying they are lying?
I find it par-for-the-course with you that you'll state that they used napalm (and even emphasize it) as fact when you have very little backing and lots of counter-evidence.
Re: toxic chemicals.
Well that's naughty. Nice bit of semantic exaggeration. Pepper spray = sarin gas in your mind when the US is involved, eh?
big fiery explosion=napalm to most people.
knock out gasses are a problem though. if women and children are present, you run into a situation where what it takes to knock out a well-fed, healthy soldier is more gas than it takes to knock out a kid. you can then OD the kid trying to knock out the soldier.
of course, they haven't actually been used yet, so we're talking theoretical here.
Originally posted by groverat
What are you implying when you say "naturally" about the Pentagon denying the charges?
Are you saying they are lying?
Well, do you honestly think that the Pentagon is going to publicly admit to using something banned by the U.N.? Naturally, they are going to deny it. I don't recall them being exactly truthful re. Gulf War Syndrome either, despite the overwhelming evidence that many veterans are suffering, and have died of something contracted during the 1991 Gulf war.
I find it par-for-the-course with you that you'll state that they used napalm (and even emphasize it) as fact when you have very little backing and lots of counter-evidence.
Can you provide some links for this "counter evidence"? The story came from an embedded journalist who watched the action at Safwan Hill.
Re: toxic chemicals.
Well that's naughty. Nice bit of semantic exaggeration. Pepper spray = sarin gas in your mind when the US is involved, eh?
Sarin or dexmeditomide...they are both "nerve gases" of a kind (according to that article anyway). Sure enough, sarin is far more lethal, re. the amount needed to kill a human, but the stuff we are planning on using is pretty lethal too (as witnessed in that Russian theater hold-up last year, 120 killed by the gas...not pepper spray btw). If it kills you, it kills you...sarin ain't going to make you any more dead than benzodiazepines, or whatever else they got in the inventory.
And...it would be sadly ironic if the U.S. would be the one to employ first use of chemical agents against an enemy that we (sup posedly) went to war against because of their alleged hoarding of such.
Originally posted by bunge
Thanks for admitting that he U.S. fouls up. That's more than a lot of people can do around here.
And it seems to be all others around here can bring up...even if they have to stretch things or imply that the US has messed up.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, do you honestly think that the Pentagon is going to publicly admit to using something banned by the U.N.? Naturally, they are going to deny it.
Do you honestly think the benefits of napalm given our current modern technology actually outweighs the very steep political cost of using it?
They admitted using it in 1993. Geneva Conventions passed in 1949. Why lie about it now if you're going to admit using it before?
I don't recall them being exactly truthful re. Gulf War Syndrome either, despite the overwhelming evidence that many veterans are suffering, and have died of something contracted during the 1991 Gulf war.
Has the Gulf War Syndrome been linked to something or even been properly diagnosed yet? Or is this more dead-baby-link propaganda?
So your logic is that since the Pentagon has lied before they are lying now?
Can you provide some links for this "counter evidence"? The story came from an embedded journalist who watched the action at Safwan Hill.
How does he know it was napalm? I haven't gotten to my Napalm Recognition 101 course here in J-school just yet.
The counter evidence is the Pentagon saying they didn't use it and that they destroyed it in 2001. And a "public ceremony" in April of 2001 in which it was destroyed.
If Blix had been as assumptive with Iraq as you are with the US we'd have been at war a long time ago.
Sure enough, sarin is far more lethal, re. the amount needed to kill a human, but the stuff we are planning on using is pretty lethal too (as witnessed in that Russian theater hold-up last year, 120 killed by the gas...not pepper spray btw). If it kills you, it kills you...sarin ain't going to make you any more dead than benzodiazepines, or whatever else they got in the inventory.
We used it in a Russian theater? Crazy. How unilateral of us.
America bad. America bad. America bad. baaaah
Originally posted by sammi jo
And...it would be sadly ironic if the U.S. would be the one to employ first use of chemical agents against an enemy that we (sup posedly) went to war against because of their alleged hoarding of such.
Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded. His are made to kill, CS and pepper spray are not designed to kill, though they can both be lethal. They only reason there are being considered is to allow US troops to take objectives with as few casualties are possible. A choice between bombing a target and killing everyone inside or trying to incapacitate them with modified Valium and Prozac, the route of incapacitation seems more desireable.
First, the CS gas that the US would/might use are not banned to my knowledge by the geneva conventions, but by the Chemical Weapons Convention. As is pepper spray, also under consideration by the pentagon. Both are considered allowable for domestic riot and hostage situations by western countries, notably Britain, whose military policy would disallow their troops from participating in foreign actions involving the use of calmative gasses.
Neither of these are banned for the same reason as other, far more lethal, chemical weapons are banned. They are included in the ban in order to reduce the chance of the one side using them and the other side retaliating and escalating to full out chemical warfare with truly lethal chemical weapons.
While I would diagree with the US using the weapons for that reason of possible escalation, and because they are banned by the convention, the reasoning would be to save lives. They are being considered for use in human shield situations and for assaults by groundtroops on bunkers. They would allow for human shields to be removed from the equation without as much chance of killing them, in a situation where the shields are being put at risk by the Iraqi henchmen, similar to a hostage situation. This is what Russia tried with their hostage situation, which obviously killed many hostages, but not as many as the hostage takers would have with their bombs and guns. In use in bunker situations, they would allow US group troops to incapacitate enemy soldiers hold up inside in a far less violent or lethal manner. In either of these cases, pepper spray is also being considered, and is also banned.
Edit: I should note, that although I said "are being considered", I don't know that, but I assume that all potentials are being considered.
Originally posted by groverat
You were lured into a false sense of security by the reasonable nature of the first part of the post only to brush over the inflammatory last sentence.
= my dogma agrees with the first part so I'll take it at face value, but my dogma doesn't agree with the second part so I'll have to ridicule it.
Originally posted by groverat
If I were Bugs Bunny...
you would be funny.
Originally posted by groverat
They admitted using it in 1993.
They admitted using it almost 50 years after it was banned, but a short 10 years after that you think that they wouldn't use it again?
Originally posted by bunge
They admitted using it almost 50 years after it was banned, but a short 10 years after that you think that they wouldn't use it again?
Why would they deny it *this* time? You would have to think they were lying when they said they destroyed whatever they had left in 2001 in a "public ceremony". They admitted to blowing up that bus on the bridge before the media broke it. So it's not like the Pentagon *always* works to deceive the media.
It's certainly not something you can present as fact.
Originally posted by groverat
...So it's not like the Pentagon *always* works to deceive the media.
It's certainly not something you can present as fact.
This I definitely agree with. I just think suspicion is OK, especially when dealing with the military. They have an agenda that is outside even political party agendas. Not anything we should trust at face value, or condemn. But we certainly can't afford them silence either.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1%2C...0508%2C00.html
This is obviously not an isolated incident.
That kind of thing should be punished very harshly.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...970952,00.html
"They lost all control - screaming, shouting and kicking people," (BBC reporter) Simpson said, adding that US soldiers' fear of snipers led to a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude.
"One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped,"