Is this a news story? Seems like it's a the case of the reporter becoming the news Anyway I call "bullshit" on him. He's whole "UK is right. US is worng." skink of bullshit.
Is this a news story? Seems like it's a the case of the reporter becoming the news Anyway I call "bullshit" on him. He's whole "UK is right. US is worng." skink of bullshit.
he is one of, if not the, most recognized reporter in the world...
Whether it's 'real' napalm or not, logging companies in Australia and Tasmania use stuff they call 'napalm' to clear undergrowth every day. Environmentalists don't like it very much.
While it might be true, that doesn't mean we're living up to the Geneva Convention standards.
Name me one nation that follows any international agreement to the letter. Hell, do you follow all strictures of your own personal doctrines to the letter, or do you make exceptions as circumstance arises, have you ever broken a law even a minor one, have you ever sinned by your personal spiritual beliefs? I'm sorry, I wish we lived in an ideal world, then we wouldn't even need a Geneva Convention, but the fact of the matter is that we are human, and to err is to be human. As circumstance arises sometimes we f--k up, that doesn't exclude Americans, Islamists, Europeans or any human of any shade.
Not chemically napalm, but it does the same thing with less residual impact on the environment.
And as for the POW mistreatment, we now know it happened.
Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation. Your article definately seems to prove, or atleast say, that sammi jo's assertion was indeed incorrect.
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation. Your article definately seems to prove, or atleast say, that sammi jo's assertion was indeed incorrect.
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
WOW. An argument that makes sense and isn't a one sided flame in either way. Thank You Taulkas, yes this does make complete sense to me.
Man you are thick. You're own article states that the GC does not prohibit these type of weapons.
What the hell is wrong with you scott? do you need to so consistently act like a jerk? You haven't even looked at the geneva convention. Here's a job for you: look up where it says anything specific about napalm. It specifically talks about 'incendiary weapons.'
As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding anything, including the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
[B]Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation.
My concern is not whether or not what was done was permitted by the geneva convention. My concern is with sentences like this from you:
Quote:
Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded.
you are FOS on two fronts: not only did the US use major chemical weapons in the Iraq war while Iraq did not, but the crowd control type chemicals being discussed at the time in the media were violation of the chemical weapons convention and very lethal. I could post links to FAS, like I did at the time in another thread, but I'll leave you to simply remember a certain theater.
Quote:
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
If multiple staff members do (from POW situations to impulsive killing of civilians that is documented almost daily), and there is a history of it (for example, containers and massacre in afghanistan) then you will be damn sure that it will go all the way to the top.
1424 It is worth noting that none of the rules explicitly protects combatants from incendiary weapons such as flame-throwers or napalm. However, it is generally admitted that these weapons should not be used in such a way that they will cause unnecessary suffering, (66) which means that in particular they should not be used against individuals without cover.
so giant not 100% correct, sorry,
Incediaries are nasty stuff, but often the military slips by Geneva conventions on the specs of the material, how long the incendiary will burn before it goes inert, or the choice of targets, covered and hardened targets etc...
Loopholes my friend, all nations use them, and sometimes for the sake of politics loopholes are fabricated
First of all, I'll just say that I don't care what other nations do, but my own nation's actions do concern me.
Well our nation does not exist in a vacuum, any action committed by us, good or bad, is judged by the international community and often is judged by their own culpability to other actions. Distasteful, yes, reality, yes. The sad sick game of politics.
What the hell is wrong with you scott? do you need to so consistently act like a jerk? You haven't even looked at the geneva convention. Here's a job for you: look up where it says anything specific about napalm. It specifically talks about 'incendiary weapons.'
As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding anything, including the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
Okay let's. I guess it's just me .. or I don't hate bush/united states enough.
Using a weapon that is not banned on a military target is a violation of the GC?
So, as is often the case, you're to overwhelmed with your anti-bush/anti-US mind set to clearly evaluate the situation.
Anti-bush most certainly does not equal anti-US. According to your (il)logic, everyone that voted to recall Gray Davis hates California. It is your blind patriotism that is rotting this country to its very core.
Anti-bush most certainly does not equal anti-US. According to your (il)logic, everyone that voted to recall Gray Davis hates California. It is your blind patriotism that is rotting this country to its very core.
I use the "/" as an and/or.
But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false.
Comments
Originally posted by New
Just adding fuel to the fire:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...970952,00.html
Is this a news story? Seems like it's a the case of the reporter becoming the news
Originally posted by Scott
Is this a news story? Seems like it's a the case of the reporter becoming the news
he is one of, if not the, most recognized reporter in the world...
Originally posted by groverat
Napalm?
Who still produces napalm?
Whether it's 'real' napalm or not, logging companies in Australia and Tasmania use stuff they call 'napalm' to clear undergrowth every day. Environmentalists don't like it very much.
Originally posted by groverat
Why would they deny it *this* time?
It's a less popular war?
Originally posted by New
he is one of, if not the, most recognized reporter in the world...
Yea so's peter arnet
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0805-01.htm
Not chemically napalm, but it does the same thing with less residual impact on the environment.
And as for the POW mistreatment, we now know it happened.
Originally posted by giant
Well, it looks like 'napalm' was indeed used in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0805-01.htm
Not chemically napalm, but it does the same thing with less residual impact on the environment.
Were these outlawed by the GC?
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And as for the POW mistreatment, we now know it happened.
By what country and where? What was the situation? What do we "know"?
Originally posted by Scott
Were these outlawed by the GC?
just as much as napalm, IIRC
By what country and where? What was the situation? What do we "know"?
you must be joking. Oh, yeah, it's scott.
Also, yes, you do have to say what we all "know".
While it might be true, that doesn't mean we're living up to the Geneva Convention standards.
Name me one nation that follows any international agreement to the letter. Hell, do you follow all strictures of your own personal doctrines to the letter, or do you make exceptions as circumstance arises, have you ever broken a law even a minor one, have you ever sinned by your personal spiritual beliefs? I'm sorry, I wish we lived in an ideal world, then we wouldn't even need a Geneva Convention, but the fact of the matter is that we are human, and to err is to be human. As circumstance arises sometimes we f--k up, that doesn't exclude Americans, Islamists, Europeans or any human of any shade.
Originally posted by giant
Well, it looks like 'napalm' was indeed used in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0805-01.htm
Not chemically napalm, but it does the same thing with less residual impact on the environment.
And as for the POW mistreatment, we now know it happened.
Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation. Your article definately seems to prove, or atleast say, that sammi jo's assertion was indeed incorrect.
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation. Your article definately seems to prove, or atleast say, that sammi jo's assertion was indeed incorrect.
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
WOW. An argument that makes sense and isn't a one sided flame in either way. Thank You Taulkas, yes this does make complete sense to me.
Originally posted by Scott
Man you are thick. You're own article states that the GC does not prohibit these type of weapons.
What the hell is wrong with you scott? do you need to so consistently act like a jerk? You haven't even looked at the geneva convention. Here's a job for you: look up where it says anything specific about napalm. It specifically talks about 'incendiary weapons.'
As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding anything, including the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
Originally posted by Tulkas
[B]Earlier in this thread, when sammi jo introduced the idea that napalm, banned by the GC, was being used, the main arguements against her idea, was that perhaps some sort of napalm like incindiary weapons were being used, but not napalm. Her implication was that the US was flagratly violating the GC by using napalm, other argued that yes, if it was napalm, then it's a violation, if it was a not, but a napalm like weapons, then no, it's not a violation.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...9?OpenDocument
learn about things before you talk about them.
My concern is not whether or not what was done was permitted by the geneva convention. My concern is with sentences like this from you:
Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded.
you are FOS on two fronts: not only did the US use major chemical weapons in the Iraq war while Iraq did not, but the crowd control type chemicals being discussed at the time in the media were violation of the chemical weapons convention and very lethal. I could post links to FAS, like I did at the time in another thread, but I'll leave you to simply remember a certain theater.
As for the POW mistreatment, yes, the US was admitted some were and is in the process of prosecuting those involved. That doesn't mean that the US has a policy of mistreating the prisoners, or any real culpability, other than they were in US custody...sometimes soldiers break rules and sometimes they get carried away. You run a library, If one of your staff gets caught abusing his position, maybe pilfering funds or perusing student information improperly and you take steps to correct his behavior or terminate him, does that make you guilty of the abuse?
If multiple staff members do (from POW situations to impulsive killing of civilians that is documented almost daily), and there is a history of it (for example, containers and massacre in afghanistan) then you will be damn sure that it will go all the way to the top.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Name me one nation that follows any international agreement to the letter.
First of all, I'll just say that I don't care what other nations do, but my own nation's actions do concern me.
After that I'll just say that this is a blast from the past and I can't get too specific without a renewed context.
link
Part III : Methods and means of warfare
1424 It is worth noting that none of the rules explicitly protects combatants from incendiary weapons such as flame-throwers or napalm. However, it is generally admitted that these weapons should not be used in such a way that they will cause unnecessary suffering, (66) which means that in particular they should not be used against individuals without cover.
so giant not 100% correct, sorry,
Incediaries are nasty stuff, but often the military slips by Geneva conventions on the specs of the material, how long the incendiary will burn before it goes inert, or the choice of targets, covered and hardened targets etc...
Loopholes my friend, all nations use them, and sometimes for the sake of politics loopholes are fabricated
First of all, I'll just say that I don't care what other nations do, but my own nation's actions do concern me.
Well our nation does not exist in a vacuum, any action committed by us, good or bad, is judged by the international community and often is judged by their own culpability to other actions. Distasteful, yes, reality, yes. The sad sick game of politics.
Originally posted by giant
What the hell is wrong with you scott? do you need to so consistently act like a jerk? You haven't even looked at the geneva convention. Here's a job for you: look up where it says anything specific about napalm. It specifically talks about 'incendiary weapons.'
As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding anything, including the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
Okay let's. I guess it's just me .. or I don't hate bush/united states enough.
Using a weapon that is not banned on a military target is a violation of the GC?
So, as is often the case, you're to overwhelmed with your anti-bush/anti-US mind set to clearly evaluate the situation.
Originally posted by Scott
or I don't hate bush/united states enough.
anti-bush/anti-US mind set
Anti-bush most certainly does not equal anti-US. According to your (il)logic, everyone that voted to recall Gray Davis hates California. It is your blind patriotism that is rotting this country to its very core.
Originally posted by BR
Anti-bush most certainly does not equal anti-US. According to your (il)logic, everyone that voted to recall Gray Davis hates California. It is your blind patriotism that is rotting this country to its very core.
I use the "/" as an and/or.
But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false.