Chemical Weapons - Iraq

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:30 pm

Well, I just got done reading reports from like 4 different sources around the world that are all saying that the US has been secretly using the BANNED chemical weapon..Napalm.

So let's see..Bush invades Iraq supposedly because of WMD (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc)..we can't find any..so then we start using chemical weapons ourselves and are okay with it? None of this makes any kind of sense!

Saddam MIGHT have attacked the world in 15 years.
Was based on old intelligence, and there was no evidence of preparations.

Saddam HAS chemical weapons.
Couldn't find any..means there is a power gap..must be filled by our own! YAY!

Those are the only two I can think of at the moment.
I really wanna hear from Bush supporters who think hypocracy is good.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:33 pm

[QUOTE=Paranitis]Well, I just got done reading reports from like 4 different sources around the world that are all saying that the US has been secretly using the BANNED chemical weapon..Napalm.[/QUOTE]
Links, please.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:37 pm

[QUOTE=Vicsun]Links, please.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is what I want too. Although I definatly agree with the accusation of hypocrasy I have not heard anything about using napalm. (Well, using napalm recently that is.

)

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:58 pm

ic Ayrshire (Scottish)
AlJazeera
TheExperiment
ElectronicIraq
Portland Phoenix
Free Internet Press
Axis of Logic

None of these are HUGE news agencies..or atleast non I have ever heard of..I mean there is AlJazeera, but that's supposed to be what the 'terrorists' use, right? Whatever. Basically all of them are getting eyewitness reports and people are freaking out, and all kinds of stuff.

*edit*
Oh, and I found out from my sister who likes to go to rotten.com to find her news..and they said it there, but I will not go to that site because it is showed really gross stuff. I asked her what the source was for that news though and she mentioned some news agency in england..so if you wanna try to find the thing on rotten.com, go for it..but I won't.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:28 pm

While I would not be surprised if these reports are true, I have to admit that a couple of these sources seem a touch suspect. Most notably, "The Experiment," and "Axis of Logic." Both of these sites scream conspiracy theorist. Yet a couple of the others, appear fairly legit like, "Ayrshire" and "The Portland Phoenix." It would be interesting to find out more about the sources of these stories.....

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:32 pm

Reputable links please.

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:39 pm

What, just because they don't say "ABCNews" or "FOX News" it isn't reputible? These are the links I read, and they are from different places, so it is good enough for me. If all of them where from south africa or something then I might not think about it..but they come from Iraq, Scotland, and freaking Portland Oregon.

You probably won't see it on the bigger news sites because it doesn't deal with US casualties, because that's all the bigger places give a crap about. Who cares how we are winning the war as long as we don't lose any people right?

When was the last time you read a report about iraq civilian deaths that did NOT include some kind of US casualty?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:45 pm

[QUOTE=Paranitis]<snip>
When was the last time you read a report about iraq civilian deaths that did NOT include some kind of US casualty?[/QUOTE]

Actually quite often in the danish medias in my experience.
And we even have soldiers in Iraq as well and "officially" (on a Government level) supported the war.

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:59 pm

I was meaning from a US standpoint..we in the US don't tend to get news unless it affect us directly in some way. So if there is a US casualty we see it all over the news, if there are 100 civilian deaths then we don't see it UNLESS we were currently fighting the 'bad guys' and the 'bad guys' turned on the people or something.

*edit*
My sister was online again and I asked her to find me the source to the rotten.com article and she said the Sunday Mirror in England..so I went to the Sunday Mirror and it looks like a tabloid..so I guess maybe the news might not be true at all. I am gonna kick my sister's butt for giving me this 'news' if it turns out to be fake.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:06 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Reputable links please.[/QUOTE]
Is The Sunday Mirror reputable enough?

Found the link via rotten.com as per Paranitis' suggestion. They are quite good at linking important-but-non-mainstream news and informative assessments on backgrounds of political figures. The areas at which they excell at is gross pictures though, so I wouldn't visit the site if I were easily offended

edit: beaten, kind of. I'll post here again later, right now I'm busy making an animated gif of a 'kick the US" button which is oh so often pressed

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:48 pm

On a serious note, any source that makes a habit of routinely attacking the US would not be considered reputable in any academic sense. I didn't actually click on all of the links but I'll tell you this about the US. The media here is way more liberal than the administration. Not only that, but a great deal of the media here really don't like Pres. Bush, including CBS, one of the larger news agencies that you mentioned. So, if this news was going to break at all in the US it would do so immediately, because there is nothing Dan Rather would love more than to put more Iraq war controversy on the air. When the prisoner abuse stuff came out it was all over the new immediately. Pictures, everything; they even showed things that usually aren't seen on network TV here. There is nothing the US loves more than scandal, so I don't think this would go unnoticed.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:51 pm

I just had some time to scout around Google, here is a
another link...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mili ... 5bomb.html

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:52 pm

Well, this news is being more specific to Tony Blair than to the US. I did a search about napalm and in August is when it was brought to the attention that we were using Napalm.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:22 pm

I would believe that the US has used napalm in Iraq now that I think about it, because the US has not banned napalm. It's not used very often, but we reserve the right to use it when necessary.. We also can use nuclear weapons if we like in case you were wondering. Now if Mr. Blair knew about it and didn't say anything that may be a problem in the UK because they have banned it.

Edit: I don't see why we would have used Nape in Iraq anyway though.. It's not generally used for that type of battleground..

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:45 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]On a serious note, any source that makes a habit of routinely attacking the US would not be considered reputable in any academic sense.[/QUOTE]

Why? Are you saying that any source that routinely attacks the US is automatically none reputable?

Secondly the US officially destroyed all their napalm bombs in 2001. However they still use Mark 77 Fire Bombs which is almost identical to napalm.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:46 pm

If Al jazeera reports it I believe it. Just some background about Al Jazeera: for a good 3 years it was CNN's and BBC's source of information in the Middle east. Actually Arabic CNN was built with information and input from Al Jazeera. I have heard from second hand sources that the only reason it stopped being so popular as a source is after Sept 11th it gave coverage to the "muslim" side of things.

Al Jazeera in the late 90's was lauded by the US government as a shining example of real journalism in the middle east which is known for despotic rulers and a very tightly controlled media.

Of course in 2003 the US tried to force the government to shut down Al Jazeera. Thankfully it did not work.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:56 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]On a serious note, any source that makes a habit of routinely attacking the US would not be considered reputable in any academic sense.[/QUOTE]

No, any source wich attacks US actions exclusively or without decent sources would not be considered reputable. Number of negative articles doesnt figure into it.

I would not use the absence of coverage in US media as indication either. It didnt cover the genocide-like war in east timor very well for example. Thats an old example though, perhaps it have changed, but I seriously doubt it.

@CM: Yes, Al jazeera is as far is I understand quite good, but they only report from eyewitness here, I cant see anything about a doctor examining the wounds or corpses though.

The other sites seems to copy Al jazeeras article...

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:59 pm

[QUOTE=dragon wench]I just had some time to scout around Google, here is a
another link...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mili ... 5bomb.html[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that was quite informative. It also did give good sources.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:51 pm

[QUOTE=Dottie]Thanks, that was quite informative. It also did give good sources.[/QUOTE]

Cheers

What I found particularly useful were the references to the Physicians for Social Responsibility and Global Security.org. I have both found both sources to be, on the whole, very much on the mark and balanced when researching various projects. Plus, the article itself was quite thorough and in-depth IMO.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:41 pm

[QUOTE=Dottie]No, any source wich attacks US actions exclusively or without decent sources would not be considered reputable. Number of negative articles doesnt figure into it.

I would not use the absence of coverage in US media as indication either. It didnt cover the genocide-like war in east timor very well for example. Thats an old example though, perhaps it have changed, but I seriously doubt it.

@CM: Yes, Al jazeera is as far is I understand quite good, but they only report from eyewitness here, I cant see anything about a doctor examining the wounds or corpses though.

The other sites seems to copy Al jazeeras article...[/QUOTE]

Even if there are good sources you really wouldn't want to cite a resource that is obviously opposed to the US. That's just one of the rules of good journalism and writing.. For example, try this headline on for size.. US TROOPS KILL SEVEN CIVILIANS IN POOR IRAQI NEIGHBORHOOD*

*did we forget to mention that the civilians had fired on the troops?

Of course there are a good amount of true articles that would be negative to the US, but actual attacks are something that points to a biased source.