10 Nov 2005

  
permanent link to this entry

Saddam's Evil: Now acceptable from U.S.

Remember how Saddam was bad because he used chemical weapons on his own people? Well now it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The good ole U.S. of A., under the leadership of pro-torture Cheney and no ethical-boundary-left-standing Rumsfeld, killed people in Fallujah with white phosphorous which is an extremely cruel, banned chemical weapon.
Confirmation via article

W.P. like napalm sticks to your skin and burns you from the skin to the bone, and when you breathe it in, it burns you from the inside out. There is no way to stop the process. You just burn alive.
which means these photos of the disfigured victims will disturb you.
Confirmation via photos

This chemical is also used in in a military technique called a shake and bake; You frighten people out of their hiding place with a bomb then cook them alive with a round of white phosphorous.

Another news item that our "liberal media" isn't bringing you.
Add this to the Bush scandal log.


 
 
johnny_jpeg to: crime
Comments (5)
 
 

Comments

  

Another news item that our "liberal media" isn't bringing you.

Ummm... how can you say that when you are directly linking an article by a mainstream media outlet? It's a freaking Reuters report!

Gomez 10 Nov 2005

really G? The best you can do is quibble over what's liberal. Have you seen the film "Fallujah the hidden massacre" all over your TV? Are the photos in heavy rotation on CNN? Can't get your sports viewing in because the media won't cover anything else? Why not defend the action? Why not defend your white house? Explain why it was wrong for Saddam but right for us.... Because your candidates are soaked in blood (and stupidity).

jpeg 10 Nov 2005

First of all, the story is being reported in mainstream media outlets. Period. I have stated it many times before here that I don't think there is any signifcant politcal bias in the MSM.

It is not being picked up into heavy rotation mainly because it is based on a dubious, single source. A source who is, if you glance at his blog, arguably more of an avowed Bush hater than you. He apparently wasn't even in the battle that he claims to have seen US deliberately "gassing" civilians.

Look at the reporting the BBC is doing on this (that bastion of right-wing ideologues). White phosphorous is A) not a banned weapon. B) Is not even a chemical weapon (it's an incendiary weapon, not illegal).

G 10 Nov 2005

It's legal when used to illuminate night skirmishes. It's not legal when used as a weapon on people.

And you're a hopelessly amoral Bush apologist.

jpeg 10 Nov 2005

Wrong again. It's illegal to use it deliberately against civilians (from your article). The same way it's illegal to use guns, bombs or sharpened sticks deliberately against civilians.

Could civilians been caught in the crossfire? Quite possibly.

However, your accusation is that, like Saddam, the US is intentionally targeting civilian populations (his own citizenry, mind you!). I'm not that cynical or prone to conspiracy theory moon-babble. If it is proven that we deliberately targeted civilians, through sources a bit more reliable than a single disgrunted soldier (who wasn't even there during the fighting!) or leftist Italian film makers, I will join you in an instant in denouncing those responsible. I would hope that you would do the same if roles were reversed.

(It won't, however, change my opinon on the morality of ousting dictators like Saddam or Milosevic by military means)

Gomez 10 Nov 2005

 
 
  Post a comment
required
required, but never published