U.S. uses napalm gas in Fallujah

[seinfeldrules]

i read the accounts by the eyewitnesses, it seems to me that they wwere describing white phosphorous grenades i had experience with those when i was a combat engineer in the army.

Do you know if the army employs tear gas at all?

 

[Korgoth]

since when do the majority of iraqi's live in fallujah? and no, i wouldent say were doing it for the iraqi people id just go ahead and say "**** you," and level it...

...if you hadnt noticed the ironical nature of this post my previous post, please kill yourself.

If thats your outlook on this situation then why do you support the war and why, in your eyes, are we even in Iraq?


Oh and to the "please kill yourself" comment, real nice ghost, real mature. I guess you really don't care about any life but your own, so arguing anything like this with you is pointless huh.

 

[gh0st]

If thats your outlook on this situation then why do you support the war and why, in your eyes, are we even in Iraq?

i guess you didnt quite catch that "ironical nature," did you. try again, it might take awhile but im SURE you can do it :dork:

 

[Korgoth]

i guess you didnt quite catch that "ironical nature," did you. try again, it might take awhile but im SURE you can do it :dork:

No, no, no, your first comment on leveling Fallujah, I believe you were completely serious. You are just claiming irony now, because I called you on it and you can't argue your way out of it. Nice try gh0st, but a persons true colors always come through.

And no I would never kill myself, no matter how much you lobby me. Unlike others around here, life is special to me.

 

[SunHawk]

Me as a German, I am used to be blamed for the crimes of my grand grandparents - I got used to it in 40 Years of US occupation

Yes they were blamed, after the free world shed the blood of millions of lives to free the world from a homicidal maniac who tried to turn the world into a graveyard.

It was the "US Occupation" that rebuilt your homes, your towns, your villages, your infrastructure... your very lives and restored to you the very freedom you now enjoy.

It was the "occupation" that airlifted MILLIONS of tons of food and medicines to save the lives of those who had been their enemies a few days beforehand.

It was the US "occupation" that stopped Soviet tanks from rolling through the Fulda Gap and turning Germany into another Czechoslovakia, another Poland, another Romania.

It was the "occupation" that tried and condemned the mass murderers of Hitler's mad regime, it was the same "occupation" that spent DECADES working tirelessly to bring the German people back from the brink of their own destruction.

It was the "occupation forces" that stormed ashore at Normandy, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of young lives to break down the door of the Nazi obscenity, and bring about its downfall.

It was the "occupation" who were the first ones to uncover the genocidal activities of the SS, whose soldiers to this day have screaming nightmares at the sheer scope of the atrocities committed under your unseeing, uncaring noses.

It was the "occupation" who walked into those glimpses of evil, the concentration camps, and beheld with their own eyes the mounds of bodies, smelt the putrefaction odour of dying inmates, and brought to light the deaths of over ELEVEN MILLION people.

Tell me, do your parents, your grandparents, still to this day deny any knowledge of what happened??? Do they still to this day say they dont know where the Jews went? Do they deny the mass deportations, the stink of charred human flesh from the smokestacks of Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Maidenek, Chelmno? Do they look at the camps and say "it never happened??"

Do they deny the Holocaust ever happened??

Do you??

The "occupation" has poured hundreds of billions of dollars in commerce and trade into Germany, its forces have guarded you, protected you, ensured your freedoms and the rights to post your tripe, without the fear of a knock on the door and a bullet in the back of the head for "disloyalty to the Reich"

Get down on your knees, you ungrateful son of a bitch,and thank whatever God you worship for the United States of America and the "occupation" that saved your sorry ass from evils you have no conception of.

 

[gh0st]

I believe you were completely serious.

well then you believe wrongly. if you think i intend to argue with you about it, you are sorely mistaken - i dont make mistakes like that in my posts. congratulations on... "calling" it on me, i definatly got called. what can i do now?

on the other hand though, i really dont care what you think of me. i you think im a war mongering idiot go for it, it doesnt affect me in the least.

edit: nice post sunhawk.

 

[CptStern]

so you admit it was a random photo, thanks. id like to see the site where you dug it up from actually, maybe i'll learn something. what headline? at least i have the denency to read the captions of the photos i post.

first link

oops. turns out stern posted "evidence" for the war i wasent even disputing. i seem to recall saying i thought it much more likely that we'd use napalm during the first gulf war - which isnt even what the thread is about. really, well done stern, youve done much to further al jazeera's credibility. in a desperate attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about you say

do you just skim through people's posts?

thats what i was thinking. it seems illogical to assume it was napalm simply because the corpse seems burnt. more than likely their tank was hit by something and exploded, and burned them alive inside. NOES IT WAS TEH NAPALM LOL FUK U AMERIKA HITLER. not only that, the author doesnt confirm or deny sterns assumption. exactly what it is, a bad assumption.

"The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force."


here's a video clip

here's more photos ..notice the civilian buses?

here's another source

here's more photos

incidentily here's some articles supporting the fact that the US used napalm in iraq ..recently:

"It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill."

source, cnn

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source



____________________________

 

[Murray_H]

Get down on your knees, you ungrateful son of a bitch,and thank whatever God you worship for the United States of America and the "occupation" that saved your sorry ass from evils you have no conception of.

:rolling: :burp:

 

[CptStern]

Get down on your knees, you ungrateful son of a bitch,and thank whatever God you worship for the United States of America and the "occupation" that saved your sorry ass from evils you have no conception of.

is this the mighty Bastion of Freedom you call the US of A? Is this humanitarianism? is this compassion?

"The bombing of the Al-Amiriya bunker in Baghdad in February 1991, incinerating more than 300 people, mostly women and children, was immediately blamed on Saddam Hussein. The bunker, we were told, was a "military facility".

Six months later, the unedited CNN and World Television News "feeds" of footage of the bunker were obtained by the Columbia Journalism Review. "They showed scenes of incredible carnage," wrote the reporter who viewed them. "Rescue workers were collapsing in grief, vomiting from the stench, dropping blackened corpses."

"Six months later, the New York Newsday reported that three brigades of the 1st Mechanised Infantry Division used snow ploughs mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury thousands of Iraqi soldiers - some still alive - in more than 110 kilometres of trenches.

A brigade commander, Colonel Anthony Moreno, said: "For all I know, we could have killed thousands." To my knowledge, the only images of this shown in the West included a few fleeting pictures on the BBC."

"Shortly before Christmas 1991 the Medical Educational Trust in London published a comprehensive study of casualties. Up to 250,000 men, women and children were killed or died as a direct result of the American-led attack on Iraq. A one-sided slaughter."

"In evidence before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the major international relief agencies reported that 1.8million people had been made homeless, and Iraq's electricity, water, sewerage, communications, health, agriculture and industrial infrastructure had been "substantially destroyed", producing "conditions for famine and epidemics".

"It is hardly surprising that, in the nine years since, the death of half a million children due to economic sanctions, and the continuing bombing of populated areas in Iraq by American and British aircraft, are not news. "The thought that the state is punishing so many innocent people," wrote playwright Arthur Miller, "is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

source


here, you need a lesson or two

 

[seinfeldrules]

Again stern, if napalm had been used on the busses, there would be nothing left. Busses are made of aluminum, napalm burns at 5000 degrees F.

 

[CptStern]

Again stern, if napalm had been used on the busses, there would be nothing left. Busses are made of aluminum, napalm burns at 5000 degrees F.

read the article

 

[seinfeldrules]

read the article

I did, but your presentation of visible evidence is shaky at best. One of the articles confirmed that we used incendiary bombs very similar to napalm, except it was kerosene in base. And even still, this bears connection to the modern day Gulf War how?

 

[CptStern]

all the links that say "source" refer to this war

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well apparently we did use a bomb similar to napalm in this war. My apologies.

 

[gh0st]

"The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force."

Not the same war man, nothing to do with whats being discussed. You make the assumption that "if weve used it before, why wouldent we use it again." Not right. not only that, but you still bring up the tired old america-the-big-bad-bully diatribe. i could easily refute this mans statement, but please for gods sake make a new thread on it instead of bludgeoning this one with your unrelated factoids.

*snip pics*
these are also unrelated media, showing pictures of a war more than a decade prior to this one. seems like you could keep on topic for at least awhile but i guess i'm wrong.

"It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill."

good. they should point out that it wasent napalm though. this 'napalm' like substance obviously isnt banned by the geneva conventions. if so, please correct me.

the remainder of your sources are either register only, or cite the same, singular event, for which i see no pictures, nor any "mainstream" reporting. in fact, they all look as though they quoted each other. next time you use links of mass same-damn-story at least make sure they arent register only, and at least are more credible than 1 single event. even then it wasent even the same napalm were talking about.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Do you know if the army employs tear gas at all?

yes, for the same reason the police use it, crowd control.

 

[SunHawk]

It is hardly surprising that, in the nine years since, the death of half a million children due to economic sanctions, and the continuing bombing of populated areas in Iraq by American and British aircraft, are not news. "The thought that the state is punishing so many innocent people," wrote playwright Arthur Miller, "is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

Right.And the money that was to be used for food from oil sales, stuffed into the pockets of the UN ,the French, the Germans and the Russians.

Nice try,

 

[CptStern]

pfft unless it's fox"news" screaming headline reading:

Foxnews NewsFlash: American Patriot Pilot mistakenly uses upgraded Naplam-like substance in Error​

Pilot: "I thought it was the button for the "surrender leaflet" bomb!"

 

[Shad0hawK]

Well apparently we did use a bomb similar to napalm in this war. My apologies.

i notice there is no real proof though everything "suggests" napalm was used, but looking at it it looks more like a fuel air bomb(which is nothing like napalm) FAE's actually suffocate most people before they are burned(although the aftermath is rather gruesome). those within close proximity to the primary blast area are simply vaporized. otherwise with the sustained heat of napalm there would have been many secondary explosions due to ammo cooking off, thin metaled vehicles one pic stern displayed showed what looked like a weapon emplacement but as he himself pointed out "the bodies were intact."

what was used on the "highway of death" were various FAE bomb's(BLU-95's) they are not banned,and they are not naplam...just because something gets hot and kills people does not make it napalm Stern... so continue with your "BLAME AMERICA™" ignore everyhting else campaign.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-72.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

 

[seinfeldrules]

Maybe it was the Iraqi Propoganda Minister.

"No, no, insurgents kill no civilians. All American work. We no keep stockpiles of weapons in mosques or civilian buildings- all American lies. Saddam did not kill any civilians, all work of US sanctions. We do no wrong. Blame AmericaTM, not innocent Iraq. It was peaceful until Americans came, no death. Death to America!"

 

[SunHawk]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28066.htm

September 4, 2004 --

The mass murder of children revolts the human psyche.

Herod sending his henchmen to massacre the infants of Bethlehem haunts the Gospels. Nothing in our time was crueler than what the Germans did to children during the Holocaust.

Slaughtering the innocents violates a universal human taboo.

Or a nearly universal one. Those Muslims who preach Jihad against the West decided years ago that killing Jewish or Christian children is not only acceptable, but pleasing to their god when done by "martyrs."

It isn't politically correct to say this, of course. We're supposed to pretend that Islam is a "religion of peace." All right, then: It's time for Muslims to stand up for the once-noble, nearly lost traditions of their faith and condemn what Arab and Chechen terrorists and blasphemers did in the Russian town of Beslan.

If Muslim religious leaders around the world will not publicly condemn the taking of children as hostages and their subsequent slaughter — if those "men of faith" will not issue a condemnation without reservations or caveats — then no one need pretend any longer that all religions are equally sound and moral.

Islam has been a great and humane faith in the past. Now far too many of its adherents condone, actively or passively, the mass murder of school kids. Instead of condemnations of the Muslim "Jihadis" responsible for butchering more than 200 women and children in cold blood, we will hear spiteful counter-accusations about imaginary atrocities supposedly committed by Western militaries.

Well, the cold fact is that Western soldiers, whether Americans, Brits, Russians or Israelis, do not take hundreds of children hostage, then shoot them in cold blood while detonating bombs in their midst. The Muslim world can lie to itself, but we need lie no longer.

The tragedy in southern Russia occurred thousands of miles from the United States, but, in essence, that massacre happened next door. The parents, teachers and students kept for days without water or food in a sweltering school building before being butchered were our children, our sisters, our wives, our parents.

The mass hostage situation wasn't about Chechen rebels (and at least 10 Arabs) opposing the Russian government. It was a continuation of the universal struggle between good and evil. And there is no doubt which side is evil, scorned though the word may be by our own elite.

How can any human being with a shred of conscience dismiss what occurred in that school as anything less than evil?

The attack in Beslan wasn't about Russia's brutal incompetence in Chechnya — as counter-productive as Moscow's grim heavy-handedness may have been. It was about religious bigotry so profound that the believer can hold a gun to a child's head, pull the trigger and term the act "divine justice."

We will hear complaints that the Russian special forces should have waited — even after the terrorists began shooting children. Negotiations are the heroin of Westerners addicted to self-delusion. Who among us would have waited when he or she saw fleeing children cut down by automatic weapons? The urge to protect children is as primal as any impulse we ever feel.

Make no mistake: No blame attaches to the Russians for the massacre at that school. The guilt is entirely upon the Islamic extremists who have led the religion they claim to cherish into the realms of nightmare.

There will be repercussions. Having suffered the hijacking and destruction of two passenger jets, a deadly bombing at a Moscow subway station and a massacre in a primary school all in less than two weeks, the Kremlin will have learned to rue the day it imagined that there was anything to gain by opposing American efforts against terrorists, whether Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

As they inevitably do, the terrorists reminded the world of their heartless barbarism. Even if France manages to beg the release of its kidnapped journalists in Iraq, it has begun to sense its vulnerability. And all Europeans with a vestige of sense will recognize that the school seizure in Russia could easily repeat itself in Languedoc or Umbria, Bavaria or Kent.

An attack on children is an attack on all of humanity.

No matter what differences Western states discover to divide them, the terrorists will bring us together in the end. Their atrocities expose all wishful thinking for what it is.

A final thought: Did any of those protesters who came to Manhattan to denounce our liberation of 50 million Muslims stay an extra day to protest the massacre in Russia? Of course not.

The protesters no more care for dead Russian children than they care for dead Kurds or for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that Saddam Hussein executed. Or for the ongoing Arab-Muslim slaughter of blacks in Sudan.

Nothing's a crime to those protesters unless the deed was committed by America.

The butchery in Russia was a crime against humanity. In every respect. Was any war ever more necessary or just than the War on Terror?

And what will terror's apologists say when the killers come for their own children?

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

 

[T.H.C.138]

has anyone here seen Team America : World Police?

has a nice little phrase about the 3 types of people in the world...dicks,pussies and assholes..

personally I find it crude yet VERY accurate...me I'm a dick..what are you?

BTW,very nice posts SunHawk...

 

[Absinthe]

well if rational thinking for oneself and taking things with a critical eye is "ignorance" i think the world needs more of it, as opposed to some who simply attack others that disagree with them.

See, that's the irony. You have generalized anybody that disagrees with you into some imaginary zealous "Blame America" group. That most certainly isn't rational thinking.

what grounds? that appears to be the only thing you talk about.

...In the Politics forum.

...In topics regarding the Iraq War.

I do not shit on the United States every chance I get. But it seems that my stance on the war is enough for you to paint me as an anti-American zealot fueled by irrational hatred. That's bull and it only shows how much you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Absinthe]

some of you guys try your best to paint me as "paranoid" when i say many liberals tend to judge the US and everyone else with a double standard, but in the end you prove me right and these words are not mere braggadocio...in the film with the french soldiers one is clearly seen shouting at and firing rounds from a leveled weapon aimed directly at the crowd but many of you said it was "inconclusive" it was looked with skepticism and scorn. however when al jazeera makes an unproven accusation in an obviously sensationalist manner, it is taken as truth without question..except by myself and a few others.

Proof of a liberal double standard? A few of your conservative buddies on this forum also questioned the content of those videos.

 

[Shad0hawK]

See, that's the irony. You have generalized anybody that disagrees with you into some imaginary zealous "Blame America" group. That most certainly isn't rational thinking..

actually i have not generalized at all, the "BLAME AMERICA™" group behaves exactly as described...that is a rather specific and realistic observation.

...In the Politics forum.

...In topics regarding the Iraq War.

I do not shit on the United States every chance I get. But it seems that my stance on the war is enough for you to paint me as an anti-American zealot fueled by irrational hatred. That's bull and it only shows how much you're talking out of your ass.

who is the one "generalizing"? you often misquote me by presenting a paraphrase rather than what i say and often are far amiss in the translation.

1. i have never referred to you as "anti american zealot" although i did make the comment in another post that some liberals often behave like religious zealots(meaning irrationally and emotionally and constantly taking things personally they should not...like political issues)

2. i never claimed you were motivated by hatred, but to be honest i do wonder from the tone(and content come to think of it) you use with me as opposed to the one i use with you...have i:

told you to do something useful like huff fumes?
called you ignorant?
told you you were talking out of your ass?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Proof of a liberal double standard? A few of your conservative buddies on this forum also questioned the content of those videos.

yes they did, and so did i at first before i even posted it, but did they turn around the next day and lose that skepticism regarding an unconfirmed report by al jazeera that was obviously sensationalism(at best) as true without question?

most did not.

in fact a couple went so far as to try to excuse al jazeera by pointing out that petrol is poisonous(which it is..if you drink it) and that burning is not that far from "melting" which is a real stretch.

but is that what al jazeera meant in the context they presented it? ROFL! NO..

the average reader would probobly take them very literally and think that the US was using a "poision gas"(as quoted by al jazeera) to melt the flesh off people...then they present a witness that descibes seeing this happen..and arabs can be very literal.(which is usually to their credit)

one example is the common misconception is that christians are cannibles because a bible verse says "you must drink the blood of christ..."

now with that type of literalness in mind read the story as if you saw it for the first time. "fire" is barely mentioned and is connected with white phosporus teh rest of the time we hear about this "gas"

"Residents in Fallujah reported that innocent civilians have been killed by napalm attacks, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel which makes the human body melt.

Since the U.S. offensive started in Fallujah earlier this month, there have been reports of “melted” bodies which proves that the napalm gas had been used.

"Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah," 35-year-old Fallujah resident, Abu Hammad said. "They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, and poisonous gas."

 

[CptStern]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28066.htm

September 4, 2004 --



Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

this contradicts everything that comes out of your mouth:

"On the theme of US sanctions against Iraq, Lesley Stahl (60 minutes) asked:

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright replied:

I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it.

not for a second has the welfare of the iraqi people ever been taken into consideration

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.desert-voice.net/saddam_husain.htm

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

 

[CptStern]

really? according to the UN, they were the ones controlling the distribution of food and medicine ..how did Saddam get a hold of it? ..I'll tell you how, he didnt:

"Resolution 712 (1991) of 19 September 1991 allowed for a partial lifting of the embargo, which would have enabled Iraq to sell some oil to use the proceeds for humanitarian purposes. In return, Iraq would have been subject to strict UN monitoring of the contracts and distribution of humanitarian goods bought with the oil revenues. "

"Resolution 1051 (1996) of 27 March 1996 established the export/import monitoring system for Iraq. Iraq and countries exporting to Iraq must notify UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) regarding the supply of "dual-use" items to Iraq. Such items are subject to inspection upon their arrival in Iraq as well as at the site where the items will be used.

Resolution 986 (1995)of 14 April 1995 enables Iraq to sell up to $1 billion of oil every 90 days and use the proceeds for humanitarian supplies to the country. On 20 May 1996, the UN and the Government of Iraq concluded the Memorandum of Understanding that codified the practical arrangements for the implementation of the oil-for-food agreement. The sanctions committee subsequently adopted on 8 August 1996 the Procedures for the implementation of Resolution 986. On 9 December 1996, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council (S/1996/1015) that all the steps necessary to ensure the effective implementation of Resolution 986 had been concluded. As a result, Resolution 986 went into effect at 00.01 hours Eastern Standard Time on 10 December 1996. The first food shipment arrived in Iraq on 20 March 1997.




this is why so many Iraqi children died


btw I use the UN as a source and you use a site that has Iraqi Jokes on it? wtf kind of source is that? look at this crap, how can anyone take this seriously?

"Iraqi TV Guide

MONDAY

8:00 Husseinfeld

8:30 Mad About Everything

9:00 Suddenly Sanctions

9:30 Saddam Appeal

TUESDAY

8:00 Wheel of Fortune and Terror

8:30 The Price is Right if Saddam Says it's Right

9:00 Children are Forbidden to Say The Darndest Things

9:30 Iraq's Funniest Public Execution Bloopers"



please try to use legitimate sources

 

[seinfeldrules]

I wouldnt talk about sources mr. commondreams.org. Or "You need to register to access this article".

, Iraq would have been subject to strict UN monitoring of the contracts and distribution of humanitarian goods bought with the oil revenues

I see no problem with this. Also, why do you single the US out of the UN?

 

[CptStern]

did you read the article on how the US purposefully bombed water treatment plants? google it, it's not hard to find


just because you're too lazy to register doesnt mean it's not a valid article/source ..I may post a few independent sources but at least I use many sources as opposed to your Fox"news" and "we love america" sources

 

[seinfeldrules]

just because you're too lazy to register doesnt mean it's not a valid article/source ..I may post a few independent sources but at least I use many sources as opposed to your Fox"news" and "we love america" sources

Nobody is going to register to read an article. It is a waste of my time and I doubt many on this board will register either. Find a different source or dont post it.
And just because you use many liberal "we hate america sources" doesnt mean they are better. I have only used FOXNews once or twice on this board. Lately you have been better, but your past is littered with them.

 

[CptStern]

no I've always tried using american sources (if and when there are any) because I know that the majority of you wouldnt accept anything but "mainstream" media (which by definition is far more biased because they are a business, (therefore they have a duty to their stockholders) unlike most independent news sources). Seriously if you have to register for a site then you shouldnt be discussing politics as most of these sites are essential to these debates. BTW I dont know when I post a site that needs registering ...maybe it's less strict here in canada but I havent registered for any of the sites in this thread, or any other thread for the last few months or ever for that matter ..like I said the only sites I've registered for is the Washington times and the New York times ..only to view old articles ..this should be mandatory if you're going to debate these topics

 

[Absinthe]

actually i have not generalized at all, the "BLAME AMERICA™" group behaves exactly as described...that is a rather specific and realistic observation.

I'm not arguing that those that fit the criteria for membership in this group (they blame everything on America) are not being generalized.

My issue is that you put anybody that disagrees with you into that group.

who is the one "generalizing"? you often misquote me by presenting a paraphrase rather than what i say and often are far amiss in the translation.

What's there to miss? Your common shtick is to put "Blame America" at the end of a reply you make to somebody who disagrees with you. And just in this topic...

i bet your one of those people who say fox news is "propaganda" but believe everything aljazeera says ROFL!!

Well, what would the point of this comment be? Fox News was never an aspect relevant to this discussion. You, however, saw fit to come to the conclusion that if somebody uses an Al Jazeera source, then they must obviously harbor a grudge against Fox. You've already made a stereotype of people being anti-war. That's a generalization made off of some people you've encountered.

Earlier, El Chi made a post about the destructive qualities of napalm. You replied with this.

and you know this because al jazaeera says so?
riggghhhhttt.
this just proves my ealrier assertion about the "BLAME AMERICA™" crowd, they will latch on to ANYTHING.... no matter how ridiculous...as long as it critical of america.

Chi's post had nothing to do with Al Jazeera, nor was he placing any blame on the United States. You, however, automatically blasted him with such baseless accusations. That's paranoid, and that's a perfect example of missing the conveyed message/

1. i have never referred to you as "anti american zealot" although i did make the comment in another post that some liberals often behave like religious zealots(meaning irrationally and emotionally and constantly taking things personally they should not...like political issues)

I never said you directly referred to me as such. But it is very much implied when you chuck me into this "Blame America" crowd. I CAN read between the lines, you know.

2. i never claimed you were motivated by hatred, but to be honest i do wonder from the tone(and content come to think of it) you use with me as opposed to the one i use with you...have i:

told you to do something useful like huff fumes?
called you ignorant?
told you you were talking out of your ass?

Excuse me for having a negative reaction to being pigeonholed into an unflattering and distasteful group.

My "huffing fumes" comment was in response to this.

"when all else fails make a personal attack...or at least a personal insult hidden behind sophomoric humor so at least you perhaps look witty...this is to be done ONLY in the dire circumstance that no amount of excuse making or distraction tactics will be believed or effective in 'spinning the way out'"
~ye olde liberal methodology manual page 1, paragraph 7.

Again, another generalization. It also implies that spin doctoring is a talent exclusive to liberals, and that only a liberal would resort to personal attacks (even though these boards would be an overwhelming sign that both liberals and conservatives resort to this). So maybe my comment was unnecessary, but your post was still retarded.

As for ignorance and ass-talking, I don't think I need to quote you any further, since the quotes I've given above are perfect examples of them.

 

[MadHatter]

Batman says, "Say, 'No to napalm!'.... Or else..."

 

[Absinthe]

Oh jesus. I wonder how many people are going to get seizures over that.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I'm not arguing that those that fit the criteria for membership in this group (they blame everything on America) are not being generalized.

My issue is that you put anybody that disagrees with you into that group.



What's there to miss? Your common shtick is to put "Blame America" at the end of a reply you make to somebody who disagrees with you. And just in this topic...



Well, what would the point of this comment be? Fox News was never an aspect relevant to this discussion. You, however, saw fit to come to the conclusion that if somebody uses an Al Jazeera source, then they must obviously harbor a grudge against Fox. You've already made a stereotype of people being anti-war. That's a generalization made off of some people you've encountered.

Earlier, El Chi made a post about the destructive qualities of napalm. You replied with this.



Chi's post had nothing to do with Al Jazeera, nor was he placing any blame on the United States. You, however, automatically blasted him with such baseless accusations. That's paranoid, and that's a perfect example of missing the conveyed message/



I never said you directly referred to me as such. But it is very much implied when you chuck me into this "Blame America" crowd. I CAN read between the lines, you know.



Excuse me for having a negative reaction to being pigeonholed into an unflattering and distasteful group.

My "huffing fumes" comment was in response to this.



Again, another generalization. It also implies that spin doctoring is a talent exclusive to liberals, and that only a liberal would resort to personal attacks (even though these boards would be an overwhelming sign that both liberals and conservatives resort to this). So maybe my comment was unnecessary, but your post was still retarded.

As for ignorance and ass-talking, I don't think I need to quote you any further, since the quotes I've given above are perfect examples of them.

that is quite the lengthy post there, however you are simply repeating yourself. i do not feel i am incorect however since after reviewing many of your posts your MO seems to be to bitch about whatever the US does and personally attack anyone disagreeing with you.

or to put it in terms you would understand, when you stop coming off as crass i will stop calling you on it.

have a nice day...now let's discuss some ISSUES.

 

[Absinthe]

that is quite the lengthy post there, however you are simply repeating yourself. i do not feel i am incorect however since after reviewing many of your posts your MO seems to be to bitch about whatever the US does and personally attack anyone disagreeing with you.

or to put it in terms you would understand, when you stop coming off as crass i will stop calling you on it.

The only personal attacks are make are directed at people that resort to idiotic tactics in a political discussion. I seem to have to repeat myself because you don't seem to get it.

But yes, screw this for now. This topic has been de-railed enough.

 

[Tr0n]

The only personal attacks are make are directed at people that resort to idiotic tactics in a political discussion. I seem to have to repeat myself because you don't seem to get it.

But yes, screw this for now. This topic has been de-railed enough.

Well I will finish the de-railing by saying this: Politics is just as radical/stupid as religion. :|

 

[Absinthe]

Well I will finish the de-railing by saying this: Politics is just as radical/stupid as religion. :|

Unfortunately, politics are far more relevant and necessary.