US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Who cares if it is called a "chemical" weapon. It's evil crap and shouldn't be used except to illuminate, which is not how it was being used here.

On the contrary, I'm sure its use was very illuminating to the mother****ers we were trying to drive out of Fallujah. I'm sure it was equally illuminating to all the other mother****ers there who thought they could dig in massively into urban positions and engage in a standup fight en masse.

[Pekka]

Reached the media in here as well but not in sense of 'they are using illegal chemical weapons', but more like 'admitted using WP' in no way binded with 'illegal'. So it was like news no one cares that much really. Nasty, but war is nasty and this is not illegal in war, I mean not agreed by all parties for ban. So as far as war laws go, I guess it's OK.

This was torture thread, no?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Sorry, KH, but don't you think the use of WP in combat would have been raised sometime in the '40s if what you say is correct?

No.

a) because of it's noninfringing uses
b) because it's a much smaller issue than the rest of the crap they were dealing with that decade

If, as the British colonel said WP smoke is being used as an irritant then its use as such certainly seems to be prohibited under 1928.

Am I really worked up about this? No.

Do I wonder what other chemical weapons are being used by exploiting other "dual use" materials? Yes.

[Arrian]

Yay. :vomit:

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm sure it's much more humane to be blown up with an artillery round, have half your body shreded by concussion, but live.

...

Have we really gotten to this point? Where we argue whether it's better to have half your body blown away or your whole body burned to a crisp?

It's like asking which is more humane: killing someone with a grenade, or killing them with drano.

WTF.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


...

Have we really gotten to this point? Where we argue whether it's better to have half your body blown away or your whole body burned to a crisp?

It's like asking which is more humane: killing someone with a grenade, or killing them with drano.

WTF.

My thoughts exactly!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You might as well ban war from your POV.

Well, you at least got me there. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't be there, and scores wouldn't be dying every day in what is more and more looking to be a hopeless quagmire.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Incendiary munitions are not CW. Nor is napalm. Maybe we should shake their hands and give them daisies?

No, daisy cutters.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice to see the usual suspects ready to defend the use of horrific weapons and torture against civilians.

Who cares if it is called a "chemical" weapon. It's evil crap and shouldn't be used except to illuminate, which is not how it was being used here.

[Kuciwalker]

Nice to see that neither Odin nor Aggie score well in reading comprehension.

[Dinner]

Edit: Screw it. It doesn't matter.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

On the contrary, I'm sure its use was very illuminating to the mother****ers we were trying to drive out of Fallujah. I'm sure it was equally illuminating to all the other mother****ers there who thought they could dig in massively into urban positions and engage in a standup fight en masse.

Why not abandon this juvenile Rambo talk and be sensible for a change?

What is it with all this pseudo-tough talk?

If you are going to start a war based on non-existent weapons, because these non-existent weapons were pretty nasty battlefield munitions like mustard gas, and are eeee-vil, then you better not use other weapons in a way that produces an even worse effect than the ones you thought were evil.

Saying that they aren't "officially" chemical weapons is just sophistical if the results are much the same.

It's not only hypocritical, but it's stupid policy because you'll look like cretins if it is made public.

Not that the current US administration seems to mind that.

I've said if before and I'll say it again. People who defend that war and any of the morons that started it are flogging a dead horse. You lost a long time ago. Now you are just humiliating yourselves.

[notyoueither]

They aren't chemical weapons, period. <--- full stop.

[Ted Striker]

Regarding the White Phosporous issue, whether not it is legal, illegal, a chemical weapon or not, unfortunatley it has become an issue, and a propaganda point against the US.

The problem is that after all we have done in Iraq, allegations like this are going to carry a heavier weight and suspicion than if we had behaved ourselves in the first place.

We:

1) Lied about our reasons for invading

2) Mismanaged the reconstruction to make the average Iraqi's life more miserable than it was before we came

3) Failed to provide adequate security, and now have an insurgency running rampant

4) Have committed atrocities through several occupying organizations (read: non-isolated events), imprisoning, torturing, and unfortunatley, killing innocent civilians who get caught in the crossfire

People aren't willing to cut us any slack because we have a history of f'ing the place up. If it looks remotely like something could be illegal, then people are going to jump on our case, whether it warrants that reaction or not.

It's kinda like the difference between the "good kid" and the "troublemaker" in the class. The good kid might screw up once, but people will forgive him because he is known as the good kid. The bad kid will screw up, even do something minor, or even there is a case where he is innocent, but people will assume he was up to no good, stictly based on his history of being a bad kid in the first place.

Unforuntaley we have little political forgiveness or capital left when it comes to these things.

[Dinner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm

BBC is reporting the UK has used WP in Iraq though only as smoke screens and not WP munitions for direct fire missions (the UK does own such weapons and maintains them as part of their military arsonal though). The Italian report claiming these are chemical weapons is seeming more and more like a red herring.

These doesn't excuse the lack of torture controls (or at least abuse) which has occured with the unofficial yet official wink & nod of the chain of command but it does at least show that phosphorous isn't what some people have claimed it is.