Falluja and incendiary devices

Remove all ads!

Any comments/views on this?

Edit: here

[ November 08, 2005, 17:15: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

It seems to me that the Italian media are reporting while wearing their tin-foil hats to avoid the mind control beams we are broadcasting. I loved the part about the U.S. govt. destroying the evidence so they couldn't find it. Somehow that statement makes it true? The article goes on to state that Italians are against the war. It appears to me an article to give the people what they want.

Regardless, If the situation called for a phosphorous artillery strike, I'm glad our units have the ability to call it in. Nobody said war was supposed to be nice.

 

True war is not nice, but every action executed should be legal, and destroying civillian homes is not legal. If they were using white phosphorus bombs, how can you justify it, by saying "Nobody said war was supposed to be nice"?

Lots of soldiers risk their lives to limit civillian casualties, but it was not the case in here.

 

Please show me in what law book it says that destroying civilian homes is not legal. I'm not sure you can find a war anywhere in history in which civilian homes/lives were not destroyed. The U.S. as a matter of principle tries to limit collaterol damage. Now it appears that when we fail to do so, we have done something wrong. I just don't get it.

 

Why not check the Geneva Convension

Can you explain how the US tried to limit the senseless destruction in this scenario?

[ November 09, 2005, 13:18: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

@Tal,

If it wasn't for your second paragraph I was going to recommend you reread the rules of this forum

You are correct that the U.S. does not recognize laws they did not pass (nor should we). I firmly believe the U.S. does more than any other nation in history at trying to avoid civilian casualties. The fact that the rest of the world continues to be disappointed by any casualty is a shame on the world, not the U.S. I happen to be bloodthirsty and would have no problem if we carpetbombed the entire mideast, took all the oil, and turned the entire region into a vacation resort. But that is just me.

 

You really should not wonder then how people who feel the same way about the US capture your planes and fly with them through one of your skyskrapers. Your mindsets seem to be curiously similar.

I have huge doubts over this news though, and it's much influenced by the source since my general trust towards any news that comes from Italy is very limited, considering how it seems to be very polarize at the moment. If such weapons were used I really have not such a big problem with it if it was public, it's the damn secrecy that bothers me. If you want to break the rules then spare the people of the hypocracy of claiming to follow them.

[ November 10, 2005, 03:31: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Since the US Air Force used flying artillery in Afghanistan, which spreads a lot of small explosive devices (that are prone to hurt non-combatants) - sometimes mines - over a large area , I can imagine the story has some truth in it..

 

Be sure to note the difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it.

 

That's actually not how the AC-130 behaves. It's far more precise than you're suggesting, and it certainly can't deploy mines. There was some Spectre guncam footage floating around the net a while ago; if you look you could probably find it.

I'd refer you to it myself, but it was extraordinarily disturbing to watch, even though it was in low light imaging , and I'd rather not see it again--so I don't know where it is.

Well, would you rather they used conventional high explosive rounds instead? WP or HE, whatever an artillery shell hits isn't going to be looking too pretty afterward.

[ November 10, 2005, 04:24: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

But there are means to deploy mines over a large area by plane? And there are other planes which are not as 'precise' as this gunship?

 

Thankfully most people would not agree with such a bitter statement. The US (government and citizens) has sponsored terrorism in Ireland for decades, but I wish no harm to US citizens, and I have friends from there, but obviously not ones that support terrorism.

Do on to others, as you would wish them do onto you.

 

By wanting to do something you're half way of actually doing it. After that it's all about priorities.

I'll take that comment with a large pinch of salt though since I find it hard to believe that you'd actually seriously want to have the millions of civilian casualties that would follow, you don't seem like the murderous kind. I think it was just an outburst of annoyance to the fact that once again the behaviour of the US army is questioned. But that's just me.

 

It doesn't appear so from a curosry inspection of US munitions; but, as I said, it was only a cursory inspection. I may well have missed something.

The only aerially deployed mines I'm aware of are naval. That said, cluster bombs could be what you're thinking of; they scatter submunitions over a wide area, and if the bomblets don't detonate I suppose one could consider them mines.

Planes can as precise or imprecise as the mission calls for. So, yes and no. It depends.

However, aircraft have not, generally speaking, been used to indiscriminately bombard areas at random in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Certainly nothing like what was seen in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

 

The article doesn't appear to have been written by someone well versed in military weapons.

A call for willie pete (white phosphorus) is only done for illumination. It is a high trajectory projectile with a fuze designed to cause detonation at the apex of the flight. It is typically shot so the apex is over the battlefield -- hence those rounds that do not detonate as designed (no product works 100% of the time) land a couple miles beyond the battlefield and may or may not detonate (the Navy WP rounds also had a point detonating fuse, but not all do). WP rounds are usually fired from guns, I don't know of any bombs that are white phosphorus (but then I only know Navy munitions).

I don't understand the 'clothes still intact' comment. White phosphorus burns everything -- it's hot and doesn't need oxygen to burn. Water will not extinguish it. WP typically catches everything on fire it comes near. It sounds like the reporter was trying to find a scoop that just wasn't there. Then blamed the lack of evidence on a conspiracy -- how predictable of poor reporting.

I'm certainly not going to claim that terrible things are not done in war, but I'm also not willing to blindly listen to reporters (no matter the nationality).

 

Maybe the story of the 'white phosphorus' was not true (I never claimed it was).

It would seam that before they build AMaster's 'vacation resort' in Iraq, the soldiers are having a little fun with the local children

News story from Chev's 'Sex and video game' post.

 

If I responded to that as I'd like to, I imagine I'd be banned rather quickly.

Which has what to do with "Falluja and incendiary devices"? If you wish to create a thread expounding on the evils perpetrated by Americans in Iraq, you really ought to label it accordingly.

 

Link to the RAI news program (the one that reported it)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

with footage it its use (warning very graphic)
(its 27 mins)

(Shows the intacts clothes on melted corpses, and shooting of unarmed civillians)
+ images of cluster bombs in uses on falluja

Fairly biased though

[ November 13, 2005, 10:06: Message edited by: edorien ]