"US used napalm-like gas in Fallujah on civilians"

Stucco · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 541

TV only shows what it wants to show. If you haven't watched Farenheit 911, then you missed a prime example. This should be considered "hear-say" until it is actually looked into on a bit larger scale than a television documentary.

I just hope it didn't happen Confused

theTJtrooper · Joined: 29 Sep 2005 Posts: 119

The word of a European documentary director should be discredited and ignored when it comes to the war in Iraq. Of course they would be glad to slander the United States. All they have to do is wait for gullible morons to turn their eye to their documentary, and bingo you have rumors that can't be proven. People who read this and don't think about it will take it for fact, and now you have turned slander into fact. Second of all, you can't possibly compare the use of chemical weapons on masses of people, to an single isolated area, especially when in that area it was used for military purposes.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 690

Hrm first off anyone who uses napalm is going to be using it for military purposes, Sadam could easily describe any use he himself made of napalm as 'militrary purposes'. The use of napalm, takes more justification than 'military purposes', it is a morality issue.

The sources claim is based upon bodies found with in the wreckage after the attack. I agree this needs more investigation before it is taken as truth, how ever to disregard such claims is ignorant and an indication of your guilt in most circumstances, this one included.

The problem with these sort of things, is it is next to impossible, to find an independant body able to research the claims. That can not be accused of bias from one side or the other.

Perhasp a mixed body of scientists from with in the EU and US, would be best for resolving such issues. This way the scientist's could keep tabs on each other so too speak and make sure nothing is overlooked, exgaerated, fabricated or based upon too little evidence. I am sure there is already a better system for this but for your average joe bloggs telling the difference between a reliable and unreliable source, is difficult. I can not. However that does not mean we should disregard anything of such nature we read or take equally as a certain truth.

All that said the US remains innocent until proven guilty. Less haste and more facts.

theTJtrooper · Joined: 29 Sep 2005 Posts: 119

According to that, we would have to investigate each and every claim made by anyone, including Italian documentarians. For instance, if I was a film director, and I made a claim that the U.S. uses nuclear weapons on women and children, does that claim require further investigation? We can make the logical assumption that the U.S. military has a strict code of ethics. Yeah, I can't prove this guy wrong. But I can say based on my general knowledge, the military would NEVER do anything that extreme. If they absolutely had to use chemical weapons, I'm sure they would have a good reason to, and it would be the last of their options.

kokusho6 · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 83

1 word describes this.....propaganda.."sorry about the spelling if i spelled it wrong"

Andromedea · Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 378

Fuck em, we should of just turned Iraq into a lake.

Memnarch · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 22

TJTrooper, why do you jump to the conclusion that the documentary is false, just because it is european
then, wouldnt american reports be false too, because they are pro-war, and america would be prowar

DoItFaster · Joined: 19 Mar 2005 Posts: 1129 Location: California

j_allstar · Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Posts: 25

It still amazes me how people can make such ignorant statements in their "arguments" and justifty and justify what they are saying because it is patriotic. DoItFaster seems to present an example of this nicely, even going as far as to say that the mistakes our goverment makes are not important, but only the actions we make to fix those mistakes. Brilliant reasoning.
This is the problem with people who come barreling out with their "strong" arguments. They dont look at contraversy from a neutral point of view. In this case, they instantly assume the documentry is true, or they instantly assume it is false. Neither approach is correct. In philosophy we believe that one cannot argue one point of view before he has looked at the argument from both sides. It is appearent that some who posted here have not done so.
Dont believe everything your goverment does is just.
Dont believe everything you read or watch.
And please dont ever start an argument with this:

"Yeah, I can't prove this guy wrong. But I can say based on my general knowledge..."

Because your argument is already pointless.

Sorry if I offended anyone but I see no reason why this argument should be passed off as "false." Do people really believe our military (or any for that matter) is incapible of doing this? Its war and things like this happen (again I am not justifying the actions or saying I believe them to be absolutly true, I am only saying they are not absolutely false... not by a long shot)

DaMasta · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 79

Snack · Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 114

Recognizers · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 46

j_allstar · Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Posts: 25

snack- I have no argument with that because I agree you. There IS always a possibility. That said, I think you missed my point, which, in case anyone else didn't get it, is that making remarkably uninformed assumptions is worthless to the conversation, and one should only argue one point or the other AFTER they have researched the topic so they know what they are talking about.
Pushing what you believe on others like a whiney child is not going to get anyone anywhere.

NightFlare · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 234

Even though i know they are capable of more than that, i don't really think they used it.