Dick Cheney Personally Directs Killing of Iraqis!!!

I suppose I should have misspelled something in that title...

Published on November 17, 2005 By greywar In Politics

In response to this (misspelled) article I have shamelessly copied this from PWOT… an excerpt:

DEATHS LINKED TO U.S. MILITARY...
Posted 11.17.05

...as reports surface that White Phosphorous artillery shells used by troops have resulted in the deaths of Iraqi insurgents.

The burning shells are normally used to light areas of the battlfield at night, so that the enemy can be spotted and then driven away with loud bursts of rap music. Critics now claim that during the Battle of Fallujah American soldiers realized that the shells, which explode in a burst of white fire hotter than the center of the Sun, are actually quite fatal and that aiming them directly at the enemy would simply save a step.

..

“This is an outrage," says Sandra Kiebold of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Terrorists, Insurgents, and Trans-Evildoers. "Did George Washington found this nation by killing people? George Bush, you call yourself a Christian. Tell me, can you imagine God killing people?"

According to embedded journalists, enlisted soldiers are using other weapons designed specifically to kill their targets. One weapon, referred to by soldiers as a ‘rifle’, ignites packed powder charges in a closed chamber causing an expansion of gas. This propels a chunk or lead or depleted uranium through a hollow cylinder at high velocity, aimed to literally punch a hole through the body of an insurgent.

Go read the whole thing… I would like to point out that the PWOT article is actually better researched and more factual than the “article” linked in my first sentence.

Comments (Page 2)

the new normal

on Nov 19, 2005

I can't believe this. The USA tortures people, drops napalm (same thing as white phosphorus) on a city. The hipocracy stink sticks in my nose. I saw a video of the people, clothes intact (so you can tell the women from the fighters) but burnt to death. I like the USA, but its extreme tendencies have me worried.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 19, 2005

Did George Washington found this nation by killing people?

Are Indians classed as people over there?

And I'm sure there were a few Red Coats whose coats were made a little darker shade of red in George Washington's little campaign to establish a nation for him to father. ;~D

ParaTed2k

on Nov 19, 2005

drops napalm (same thing as white phosphorus) on a city.

Ummm.. nope Napalm and Willy Pete are two different things... even under the Geneva convention.

Island Dog

on Nov 19, 2005

“This is an outrage," says Sandra Kiebold of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Terrorists, Insurgents, and Trans-Evildoers.

The sad thing is this organization probably exists.

drmiler

on Nov 20, 2005

I can't believe this. The USA tortures people, drops napalm

Load of crap!

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?
Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – Al Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

Created: 09 Dec 2004 Updated: 10 Nov 2005

the new normal

on Nov 20, 2005

it's not crap. The USA did torture people (hopefully unsanctioned, therefore end of story).
The USA did drop a 'napalm like substance' phosphorus. Who, what, when, where, why? we'll probably never know

" "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds"

Now, it may not be against a treaty that the USA has signed, but you have to admit, it doesn't look good.

Daiwa

on Nov 21, 2005

Beheaded civilians and dead US soldiers don't look particularly good, either.

Cheers,
Daiwa

the new normal

on Nov 21, 2005

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em eh?

Bahu Virupaksha

on Nov 21, 2005

I have drawan attention to this. Anyway the use of W P makes the USA stand along side rogue regimes like Saddam's which too used chemical weapons against civillians. Atleast Saddam is not an elected ruler. Bush and the Bushmen claim democratic legitimacy which make the use of WP far worsw.

drmiler

on Nov 21, 2005

Lets start with....you very specifically said "Napalm" which I proved you false. You did NOT say a napalm like substance. And fyi phosphorous is NOT a Napalm like substance. Need a science lesson do we? Napalm is petroleum based phosphorous is not.

The who,what, when, why we ALREADY know. If you're going to post on a subject you should at least try to stay current on it. As for the "torture" the "INDIVIDUALS" responsible have already been put on trial and found guility! So the "US" does NOT use torture. And just for you and Bahu. One last time...we did NOT use white phosphorous specifically against any human target with the intent to burn them. Get real and get a life. So in essence it's "still" a load of crap.

Athene Aquinas

on Nov 25, 2005

.... uhm depends on who you ask I suppose. When I was really young, they were considered savages... then about the time of Costner's Dances with Wolves, they were in trend.... now, since theyre ALLOWED to have casinos... once again theyre BAD..... I guess when you're not white, then youre used to the trends.

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2005

uhuh.."how" did you get on Indians? "We're" talking about Iraq and Iraqi's, NOT American indians.

COL Gene

on Nov 25, 2005

War is a nasty business. You fight to win and use the weapons that are effective in Killing the enemy before they Kill you. As a former artillery officer, WP is BAD stuff but effective aginst some targets. The most important issue is, Should a country go to war? If the answer is Yes, then you fight to win and keep your cauualties as low as possible. You do that with superior force in numbers,tactics and firepower.

Daiwa

on Nov 26, 2005

I think this is the second position Gene has taken that I can agree with completely, at least on its face. However, Iraq isn't like previous wars, especially WWII where a (somewhat) reliable estimate of enemy strength & numbers could be made.

I believe the administration and the top military brass had the invasion force needs figured out quite well but both underestimated the number of troops needed to maintain the peace, or at least a peace acceptable to administration critics and the press, though I remain unconvinced it was "knowable" before Saddam was toppled.

On the other hand, what the press & the administration's critics would consider an "acceptable" peace is unclear (to be kind), and I have no doubt that, had twice the number of troops gone in & stayed, and we had no insurgency for all intents and purposes, the press and Bush critics would be yammering on about Yanqui Imperialism & the "oppressive occupation" of Iraq, not to mention the waste of money in sustaining such a large military presence there, keeping so many soldiers & guardsmen away from home, yada, yada.

The press are truly blinded by their antagonism over the liberals' loss of political power, something that just frustrates the hell out of them.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Athene Aquinas

on Dec 09, 2005

Geeez and I thought we were talkin' about tolerance

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!