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

Big · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 16

Actually the logic behind is that if someone is holding a gun to there head they can't vote. Also what was the reason provised for not letting the Doctors in, was the fightning to intense to sucessfully get the Doctors, was the hospital taken over as base of operations(All of these are common sense reasons that would make not violating the Geneva Convention a very Dumb move). Also I wouldn't trust the UN voice on any issue on Iraq as they were against the US going and were making Money off of oil for food(I would like to note American Companies were doing this as well mainly Daimler-Chrysler). Also most of the City was evacuated and Blowing up buildings is part of Urban warfare plain and simple, moreover after Fallujah the US poored millions into Iraq specfically to rebuild the city. As for targeting Civilians on purpose and for torture it's all theory and here say until you have a) pictures or Footage like Abu-grab(that may be spelled wrong), where i would like to note that all know offenders were Court-martialed B) Multiple independent sources, not some mother crying b/c her bathist son got blown up. As for the Storming of the hospital it is logical move as A) it makes a good command center B) How do you stop people from become hostages... Surround them with guns C) Also not allowing Civilian Doctors in does not mean they didn't Use Military Doctors, Every Suicide Bomber that has Survived was because of a US Military Doctor. Insurgents in Iraq Don't fight in uniform meaning they techically are not an organzied army and do not have the benifit of Geneva Conventions Protection . In short go US and if they don't fight by the rules, why would you.

NightFlare · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 234

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

Stucco · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 542

Please, you all cannot even comprehend what is happening. My brother is a squad leader in the Marine Special Forces. He has said that he had done awful things but had no choice. It was either they die or you and your men die. As Big said, the people were warned and had plenty of time to evacuate the city. The city was going to be purged and the inhabitants knew that. Those that stayed, stayed at their own risk. Since insurgents dress as civilians, this sort of thing is inevitable. Is it sad that potentially innocent people were killed? Of course, but it was THEIR choice not to leave. Kids that will never be in that situation do not have the right to question the actions of those that are. Those that do merely want to cause trouble and nothing more.

nico · Administrator Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 819

Stucco, I can tell in one word why people didnot leave the town:

PROPAGANDA

All their lives they were fed stories about the dangers of the west, and the things the west will do to the people.
Also, don't forget they are strictly religious and their leaders make a perfect use of that fact.
I don't underestimate the problems the soldiers encounter, but I do think their leaders underestimate what the soldiers encounter, and conveniently forget the influence of religion on the common people.

Greetz Nico.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 764

We will always have the right too question, thats part of democracy, free speech allowing us to question and challenge whatever we see fit.

America must answer these sort of claims, they can not be dismissed for reasons I have already explained. Or shall we all go around shooting people and then saying when asked why we did it, that we dont have to tell you are biased and too unimportant for us. They have evidence it needs to proved or disproved simple. There also could have been unmitigating circumstances, that made these actions necessary. Its not compunding the US to guilt as all the us replies have acted in response. It is asking for there side of the events.

Stucco · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 542

I guess what I found frustrating was the fact that the article made it see like the U.S. purposefully targeted civilian areas. To say that they do and provide weak proof as the article did is just... well.... stupid.

Religion. I understand the impact of religion. However, the propaganda is working both ways in Iraq and so they still have a choice. These people aren't completely sheltered. They had warning, stay or leave. From there, the new emphasis is on protecting the troops that enter.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 764

I do not belive you are qualified in the slightest to decide whether evidence is weak or strong. Should we all just let things like this slip, so we can allow another hitler.

elvenwarrior · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 5

SL|RedDemon · Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 116

nico · Administrator Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 819

Also, look up on the term friendly fire. A lot of american soldiers were wounded/killed due to it. The american army (any army in fact) is not as flawless as they would like you to believe.

Greetz Nico

Stucco · Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 542

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

dumpTRK · Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 3

Maxwell · Joined: 26 Nov 2005 Posts: 40

Christ. The USA kicks ass.
Forget bullets, we'll burn your asses.

Shame the report is from another one of those random USA hate mongering countries.
If I was in charge, I'd take care of them, before anyone else.