Nice Hoax.. You'll have to try harder than that though.
They're slooowly geeeeting aaaaway...
The documentary discusses the use of incendiary weapons. These aren't usually classified as "chemical weapons". Chemical weapons are those whose primary destructive effect comes from direct chemical action (e.g. nerve agents, pulmonary agents, etc) rather than from fire or explosive action.
Although if you're on the receiving end of either, the distinction isn't the first thing on your mind.
American use of incendiaries isn't news. They used the 15,000 lb Daisy Cutter fuel-oxidiser bombs in Afghanistan and in Desert Storm.
Okay, let's assume for the moment that I am very naive and gullible, and having a bad day to boot. Would you please explain to me why you think this is a hoax?
Would you please explain to me why you think this is a hoax?
You never heard of freedom? Someone should lock you up for perpetrating a hoax. Then you'll be wanting some capital F Freedom, with gravy and Kcurds. USA set 'em all free! Chemical warfare, whut!?
USA! USA!
That's a big file for someone on dialup, so if it is a hoax I'd like to know before downloading. Please explain, Rev.
Would you please explain to me why you think this is a hoax?
It's not a hoax, but it's misleading. Like StoryBored says, "chemical weapon" as commonly used means war gases like chlorine, mustard, or vx. These ain't them. These were incendiaries, which are still a big planet of no fun, but not the same thing. They're "chemical weapons" in the same way that, say, a bomb or gunpowder is: they're made of chemicals, same as anything else. Use of incendiaries has been basically open, if occasionally described in fig-leafed terms.
I gotta say it's hard to take the piece seriously when it starts by asserting that the US dropped the napalm in the famous series of photos, when it was actually a (South) Vietnamese pilot. Getting stuff as easily checked as that wrong speaks to a casual attitude towards fact-checking.
Here's some more hoaxes
DU is bad shit, but it's bad shit because it's a heavy metal; it's only barely radioactive. A hint for those playing along: a long half-life implies very weak radioactivity; if you want, you can think of a stable isotope as being "radioactive" with a half-life of infinity.
If you got rid of DU for penetrator rods, you'd end up replacing it with... other heavy metals like tungsten, which also do unkind things to the human body. If you really really don't like the stuff, go invent new and exciting ways to kill tanks, so that nobody wants kinetic-kill rods anymore.
I don't think WP or M77 are banned at all, and proving that they were used against civillians in Fallujah will be nigh impossible, I should imagine.
DU is bad shit, but it's bad shit because it's a heavy metal; it's only barely radioactive.
And I s'pose you don't think there's any carbon fourteen isotopes in your body, Xeny. Add 234 plus 235 plus 14 (and some other evil numbers) and you get 666! Praise the lawd!
Critics of the studies purporting to demonstrate the danger of DU point to the fact that they come primarily from "Green" or left-wing groups who are opposed to nuclear power and uses of its radioactive byproducts. On the other hand, critics of studies that conclude DU has minimal negative health effects argue such studies are often commissioned by or 'linked' to the US, UK or other national governments which make use of DU weaponry, and thus may have an incentive to minimize negative conclusions. [from Wikipedia]
I'd like to add that the lefties also tend to oppose war.
I didn't realize any of these people opposing depleted uranium use were talking about radiation. The real problem is in debris and groundwater pollution. If you live off a well or a river because your infrastructure was seriously hindered by, oh, say war for example, then you might be in for some ugly surprises. At the same time, the amount of toxic groundwater pollution in various forms in the USA makes me hope that the standards of toxicology aren't set in that regard.
But, tests need to be done. There aren't many that I know of. And the US Military uses the inconclusiveness of this study in specifics to play down any negative effects. He said, she said.
Still, it's funny how it's harder to get a grant for health research than it is to get money to make "cool toys".
...clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.
AFAIK, the U.S. is not a signatory to the UN Convention. Also, even if it did, it'd be easy to spin Fallujah sites as "military" targets.
The Mark77 is a peanut compared to the BLU82 Daisy Cutter used in Afghanistan. The Mark 77 is a 750 lb incendiary device. The Daisy Cutter is 20 times the size, and it in turn pales in comparison to the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) (also known as the Mother Of All Bombs). The MOAB is twice the size of the Daisy Cutter and is the biggest non-nuclear explosive weapon in existence. It has never been used in combat. Yet.
Interestingly enough the stir over "weapons of mass destruction" focus mainly on chemical agents, biological agents, and nuclear weapons. However, a BLU82 or a MOAB detonated in a dense downtown core could be equally devastating.
Banned weapons tend to be the most lethal weapons that weaker countries are able to deveolp. Definitions of "chemical," "biological," and "weapons of mass destruction" are created that will make the most lethal weapons of the weaker nations illegal. The most lethal weapons of the stronger nations are perfectly legal. It is an effective way of making sure that the militaries of the stronger nations are never challenged by the militaries of the weaker nations.
Hmmm, that's a good point.
the U.S. is not a signatory to the UN ConventionIs too: see page 523, top of middle column [PDF]. For what that's worth.
So, bernockle, are there some banned weapons you'd like to see un-banned?...you know, to balance the playing field.
I am not a weapons expert and do not know too much about the banned weapons. I do not know if I would want any of those weapons unbanned. I would, however, like to see some weapons banned that are not already banned.
While I am sure that it is not really possible to balance the field, I would like to make illegal the weapons that can level the field.
are there some banned weapons you'd like to see un-banned?
Nukes. You got some, everyone else wants one too. Luckily Supreme Ayatollah Bush thinks that the Nukuler Nun Petrifcation Treaty is a "silly ol' thing".
and do not know too much about the banned weapons
I do!
Wait, not "too much".
Actually I don't know anything. Who'm I kidding.
see page 523, top of middle column [PDF]. For what that's worth.
AFAIK, I know nothing!
I can only plead in my defense that the US signed but with "reservations" and "understandings", see footnotes in the same document. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what those reservations and understandings are.
Actually it's all pretty much a farce really. In the name of fighting terror, anything goes, because as everyone knows we'll all be safer if we kill dem varmints. So napalm, anthrax, daisy-cuttin', rootin tootin, sarin, sassafrassin', JDAMin, jugglin', mini-nukin', whatever ya gotin'....
Actually I don't know anything. Who'm I kidding.
Yeah? well for someone who don't know anythin', ya pulled up that treaty doc purty fast.
Ya aren't a varmint are ya?
Cuz if y'ar, then it's time for some rootin-tootin', sassarassin'....
Oh, jesus, we're all fucked.
Look, if using chemical weapons on iraqis was good enough for Churchill and Sadaam, its good enough for Bush.
The opening scenes are cut from Vietnam era footage of incendiary bomb/napalm attacks.
Thank You, and have a nice day.
No, thank you.
The opening scenes are cut from Vietnam era footage of incendiary bomb/napalm attacks.
....and we know that because the narrator in the documentary says so.
It's not a hoax. The US military readily admits to having used white phosphorus shells in Fallujah. The effects on the human body are similar to napalm. The problem is the way the new shells are designed. The military claims they're to illuminate the battlefield but the newer shells have a delivery system that spreads the phosphorus over a wide area. That wide area covers the bad guys as well as the civilians. Phosphorus is not banned by any treaty and has been used in military operations for over fifty years. I'm not saying what they're doing is right. The problem is the way the phosphorus is now being delivered. The new shells are designed to kill and maim as well as illuminate the battlefield. Any excuse that it's used just to see the bad guys better is utter bullshit. We've refined the delivery system to make it an effective battlefield weapon
Hey, it made google news! Congratulations chithulu!
Kcurds. USA set 'em all free! Chemical warfare, whut!? USA! USA!