News US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[russ_watters]

whats got people hostile is that you were eager to built the case against him when, as you implyed, he had no case to begine with, there was just only a video link. i mean you said "I will not sit through several minutes of propaganda, searching for a point." when you assumed what the point was so you could take opposition to it.

I didn't assume anything, I drew a conclusion from the article linked and the thread title.

...it sounds like you would like to crush the thread is all.

What I wanted to crush was a major misconception on the part of Skyhunter, and a lie and propaganda on the part of the people who made the video and link. And my searching for Skyhunter's point, aside, Skyhunter made an assertion that the US used chemical wepons in Falluja. That assertion is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if Skyhunter was talking about the Mk77 or phosphorus - it's wrong either way.

But if there is something else to the phosphorus issue, fine. I'll post nothing else until Skyhunter makes a point. But I suspect this thread will die a quiet death, just like the last one did after everyone realized there was nothing to it.

 

[Art]

Stop with the attitude, Informal Logic. I don't break it out often, but don't forget who you are talking to.
Regarding that other thread - why don't you read it? It is 7 pages long and you will find that the one post I made was just asking for a couple of clarifications from another mentor - that thread garnered an unprecidented response from mentors because of how bad the OP was.

Ahem I started that other thread and here is the OP you are trying to rubbish.

The Ultimate In Hypocrisy
Having gone to war on the grounds that Iraq had illegal weapons, US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances (which was banned by the UN in 1980) were true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
And more hypocrisy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uni...ss_destruction

After 7 pages it was decided that;
Point 1.
MK77's are napalm under a different name and are even listed on the US army's inventories as naplam. Napalm is illegal but by using semantics MK77 isn't (mainly because it's spelled differently )
Point 2.
The US gov't definitely did lie to the British defence minister when asked if they had used napalm OR MK77s in Iraq. (I provided Hansard as an impeccable source to prove that)
Point 3.

As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

Now perhaps the US gov't sneaks under the bar by changing a molecule here and there but the fact remains the US used the very same type of weapons against the Iraqis whose (non-existant) possession of which was used as the justification for the war.

As evidenced by the strength of feeling in the posts in this thread it appears all decent minded people are disgusted by the use of these weapons and attempts by some to change the subject by playing semantics about what is and is not illegal or by complaining about the length of the video clip does not change that simple fact.

 

[edward]

A firebomb by any other name is still a firebomb.

I would tend to believe that no actual ? chemical weapons were used in Fallujah. The many reports coming out of the city are most likely due to the fact that the air was so intensely saturated with phosphorous smoke. We also still use tear gas and nausea gas. And also whatever it was that was pumped into the Branch Dividean compound in Waco is probably still around.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk77.htm

And yes MK77 MOD5 incendiary bomb is still in the U.S. arsenal. Please see page 9 in the pdf link.

http://www.afsc.army.mil/ac/aais/apbi/lai016%20two%20year%20section.pdf

The ironic thing about fallujah is that after destroying the thriving city of 300,000 the General in charge stated " we have broken the back of the insergency. How wrong that man was.

 

[Evo]

Ahem I started that other thread and here is the OP you are trying to rubbish. After 7 pages it was decided that;
Point 1.
MK77's are napalm under a different name and are even listed on the US army's inventories as naplam. Napalm is illegal but by using semantics MK77 isn't (mainly because it's spelled differently )

No, people generically referring to something as napalm does not make it napalm. People make incorrect references all of the time.

Point 2.
The US gov't definitely did lie to the British defence minister when asked if they had used napalm OR MK77s in Iraq. (I provided Hansard as an impeccable source to prove that)

We will never know what one person told another. The ONLY fact is what was PUBLICLY known at the time, which is not what the UK defense minister claimed, shame on him.

[Point 3.
As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

 

[edward]

Actually it is all in the semantics. The military in the field still uses the term "Napalm"
I would imagine that is because it is easier than saying "MK77 MOD5 jellied jetfuel mixed with polystyrene incendiary bomb"

The Brutal Weapons
The long-feared US ground assault on Fallujah began on Mon. 8 Nov., with air and artillery attacks, including the dropping of eight 2,000-pound bombs. “Usually we keep the gloves on,” said the head of the US 1st Infantry Division’s Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. “For this operation, we took the gloves off.” ‘"Some artillery guns fired "white phosphorous" rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin.’ (Washington Post, 10 Nov., p. A01) ‘White phosphorus shells lit up the sky as armour drove through the breach and sent flaming material on to suspect insurgent haunts.’ (Telegraph, 9 Nov., p. 1)

http://vitw.org/archives/667

As for the white phosphorus there is a brilliant flash when it explodes, but it is not used as someone mentioned "to light up an area" magnesium flares do that. What matters now is that the entire world, with the exception of a few people in the USA, does believe that we used white phosphorus.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought the purpose of this forum is to share, debate, discuss, and argue political events.

After I watched the documentary clip with all that live footage I wanted to share it with others to discuss. I wasn't looking to shape the debate, or set forth an argument.

What I see in that video is corpses burnt crisp with their clothes intact.

Is that or is that not what you would expect to see as a result of exposure to WP?

In my eyes that is a chemical weapon. The wording of the title is my own. Sorry that it set you off russ, that was not my intention.

I am not going to argue with anyone about semantics.

Watch the footage and post a comment or not. But don't prejudge it and then rant about what you have not seen. If you don't want to watch it that is your choice. If you want to make uninformed biased commentary in huge letters, go ahead.

The truth is powerful when used as propaganda. Live footage is evidence, draw your own conclusions. This clip is worth viewing and many people will.

What was done in Falluja is wrong and is being exposed.

Closing your eyes does not make it go away.

 

[loseyourname]

Now perhaps the US gov't sneaks under the bar by changing a molecule here and there but the fact remains the US used the very same type of weapons against the Iraqis whose (non-existant) possession of which was used as the justification for the war.

I thought the chemical weapons that were believed to be possessed by Iraq were toxic gases.

 

[Skyhunter]

Actually it is all in the semantics. The military in the field still uses the term "Napalm"
I would imagine that is because it is easier that saying "MK77 MOD5 jellied jetfuel mixed with polystyrene incendiary bomb"
http://vitw.org/archives/667
As for the white phosphorus there is a brilliant flash when it explodes, but it is not used as someone mentioned "to light up an area" magnesium flares do that. What matters now is that the entire world, with the exception of a few people in the USA, does believe that we used white phosphorus.

This is almost as disturbing as seeing all those graphic images.

Just like the leak that the CIA has a secret prison network in Eastern Europe, these types of actions by the US government serves to incite more hatred towards Americans.

I am beginning to believe our foreign policy is not the result of ignorance and bumbling by Bush. I am starting to think that the extraordinary actions of our government is by design, for nefarious reasons.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought the chemical weapons that were believed to be possessed by Iraq were toxic gases.

OK I blew it with the title.

I don't care what the legal definition is of "chemical weapons". That is not the point I want to discuss.

Seeing this has only reinforced my belief that the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake and we are still paying for it.

 

[loseyourname]

OK I blew it with the title.
I don't care what the legal definition is of "chemical weapons". That is not the point I want to discuss.
Seeing this has only reinforced my belief that the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake and we are still paying for it.

I wasn't answering your post. Art said that the US was using the same types of weapons that it invaded Iraq for supposedly possessing, but I thought that Iraq was invaded for supposedly possessing toxic gases and biological agents.

 

[deckart]

That ending footage made no sense to the issue of napalm, if it was ever used. They failed to show ALL the footage, which I have seen. Which shows the combatants hiding RPGs then running to get them and drawing them, looking for the apache chopper that was monitoring their movement. It's called selective editing to prove your cause. I'm not challenging the the bulk of the video (the images are real but I simply do not know where it is legit) but running a lengthy video then editing the content of an unrelated segment in the end to suit your cause is misleading and makes the entire thing suspect. Seriously, if what they are showing is true then why edit video that is totally unrelated to napalm or chemical weapons? Unless it is simply a spin on actual events.
War is hell. Despite what many like to believe, it is necessary. In all of human history there have been ideals humans have chosen to live for and to die for. In the Western Civilization we hold a particular standard of behavior and a particular respect for life. And we will go to any extreme to defend and uphold it because that is the life we know. And that is reality my friends. When we fail to uphold our way of life, others will kill us to uphold theirs. If we decided to quit upholding our values, we will be killed by those that have ideals that differ. The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.

I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

 

[Bilal]

- You admitted that this war is not about ‘’liberation’’ or mass destruction weapons, but to kill the ‘’evil’’ Muslims and to destroy their countries as crusaders and recently Zionists did in my country.

- Everyone knows that Iraq was the most secular country in ME before the war. The spiritual father of Baath party is Arab chsraitian and the second man in Iraq (Tariq Aziz) is Christian also. Accordingly, how you can justify the invasion of Iraq by your theory about the war against the ‘’evil Muslims’’?

- Bush said already that he invaded Iraq because the god told him. He is the one who is not tolerating with non Anglo-saxon white Baptist Christian. He believes in Armageddon in ME, and thus he wants to create instability so Jesus can return back swimming in the blood of ‘’evil Muslims’’. There is no big difference between him and OBL.

- Muslims do tolerate other religions, and for that reasons we have more than 10% of Arabs are Christian, and many of them are leaders (e.g. president of Lebanon).

- Zionist Jews are not innocent victims, they invaded my country and they kicked out the Palestinian people (18% of Palestinian are Christian) to create pure Jews State. USA and UK supports their crimes and give them excuses to ignore the international laws since decades. This aggression and double standard of western politicians since 1WW is the first reason why there are a gap between USA and the rest of the world.

Most of people of ME are fighting for democracy and freedom since decades, but thanks to USA who supported the corrupted dictators (including Saddam) since 60 years as Bush said, and thanks again for them for supporting the ethic cleansing of Palestinian people by kicking out complete nation from his homeland to find place for European Jews!

At last do not forget that OBL and Saddam was supported by CIA not by Islam.

The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.
I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

 

[Art]

I wasn't answering your post. Art said that the US was using the same types of weapons that it invaded Iraq for supposedly possessing, but I thought that Iraq was invaded for supposedly possessing toxic gases and biological agents.

Type = WMD / illegal weapons.
White phosporous when delivered by artillary shells produces a gas cloud which when inhaled burns you from the inside out and it's use against civilian areas whether or not there are military present is prohibited by international law thus the US military commited a war crime. Now instead of sitting in denial or worse, trying to justify it, accept it as it is and you might begin to understand why there is so much animosity to the US campaign in Iraq from the rest of the world.

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had “lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq”. (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American “free press” is yoked to the center of power in Washington. As we’ve seen with the Downing Street memo, (which was reluctantly reported 5 weeks after it appeared in the British press) the air-tight American media ignores any story that doesn’t embrace their collective support for the war. The prospect that the US military is using “universally reviled” weapons runs counter to the media-generated narrative that the war was motivated by humanitarian concerns (to topple a brutal dictator) as well as to eliminate the elusive WMDs. We can now say with certainty that the only WMDs in Iraq were those that were introduced by foreign invaders from the US who have used them to subjugate the indigenous people.
“Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm” the Pentagon insisted that “US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.” (UK Independent)
The Pentagon lied.
Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, “since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area.”

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8186&sectionID=15

 

[Art]

No, people generically referring to something as napalm does not make it napalm. People make incorrect references all of the time.

I wonder if the people incinerated by MK77s fully understand or care about the subtle difference between napalm and MK77 mod 5. The main difference being that MK77 mod 5 is considered more environmentally friendly.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.

We will never know what one person told another. The ONLY fact is what was PUBLICLY known at the time, which is not what the UK defense minister claimed, shame on him.

WE all do know what one person told another. Only those who do not wish to believe it do not.

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9175.htm

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

I'll help you

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Protocol IV,
Vienna, 13 October 1995
Protocol II, as amended,
Geneva, 3 May 1996
...Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

It is interesting to note that the US justified their invasion of Iraq on the grounds of the 'terrible weapons of mass destruction' Iraq supposedly held whilst they themselves have a long history (going all the way back to 1900) of refusing to sign international agreements banning 'terrible weapons of mass destruction'. A case of 'Do as I say don't do as I do'.

 

[Polly]

That ending footage made no sense to the issue of napalm, if it was ever used. They failed to show ALL the footage, which I have seen. Which shows the combatants hiding RPGs then running to get them and drawing them, looking for the apache chopper that was monitoring their movement. It's called selective editing to prove your cause. I'm not challenging the the bulk of the video (the images are real but I simply do not know where it is legit) but running a lengthy video then editing the content of an unrelated segment in the end to suit your cause is misleading and makes the entire thing suspect. Seriously, if what they are showing is true then why edit video that is totally unrelated to napalm or chemical weapons? Unless it is simply a spin on actual events.

May the dead rest in peace.

I look at the edition quite differently. The ending footage is an artistic expression of the subtext that Iraqis, looked down from a vantage point, are squashed like roaches under the snooperscope in a detached, game way, as if they were sub-human. One also gets the feeling of the one-sided supremacy of US military power. These points echoes what we already know from the theme footage and elsewhere.

 

[Skyhunter]

May the dead rest in peace.
I look at the edition quite differently. The ending footage is an artistic expression of the subtext that Iraqis, looked down from a vantage point, are squashed like roaches under the snooperscope in a detached, game way, as if they were sub-human. One also gets the feeling of the one-sided supremacy of US military power. These points echoes what we already know from the theme footage and elsewhere.

This kind of one sided power only serves to turn otherwise despicable hateful people into heros. This is the wrong way to fight terrorism. What the government is doing is only fanning the flames.

As we descend further and further into barbarism deckart, your argument becomes weaker and weaker.

When you can no longer tell the difference between one side and the other, who can say which is right?

 

[Skyhunter]

I also have the complete footage from the gunship from the end of the clip if anyone would like it pm me.

 

[Evo]

WE all do know what one person told another. Only those who do not wish to believe it do not.

Art, explain how the US government "lied" when it had already publicly posted this information on the internet? Your "article" is meaningless.

I'll help you

That doesn't answer the question of what was actually used. I may have time to look it up tonight.

 

[Art]

Art, explain how the US government "lied" when it had already publicly posted this information on the internet? Your "article" is meaningless.

I'm sorry Evo but you'll have to research it yourself as I can't find a simpler way to explain it . Still I'm sure the vast majority of readers here WILL understand how the US gov't lied first to the public in general and then to the British gov't specifically re their use of MK77s.

That doesn't answer the question of what was actually used. I may have time to look it up tonight.

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

 

[Burnsys]

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

No. they are just going around in circles, avoiding the point...

and the point is, The US used incendiaries weapons (be it, mk77, napalm, wp) over places with civilian populations.. resulting in the burning alive of a lot of inocent civilians.

 

[Skyhunter]

No. they are just going around in circles, avoiding the point...
and the point is, The US used incendiaries weapons (be it, mk77, napalm, wp) over places with civilian populations.. resulting in the burning alive of a lot of inocent civilians.

There seems to be an active effort to quash discussion of this topic.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Anttech]

war is hell. Despite what many like to believe, it is necessary. In all of human history there have been ideals humans have chosen to live for and to die for. In the Western Civilization we hold a particular standard of behavior and a particular respect for life. And we will go to any extreme to defend and uphold it because that is the life we know. And that is reality my friends. When we fail to uphold our way of life, others will kill us to uphold theirs. If we decided to quit upholding our values, we will be killed by those that have ideals that differ. The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.

I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.
Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

 

[deckart]

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

? Islam began in the 7th century, "hundreds of years" ago.

 

[Art]

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

 

[loseyourname]

Type = WMD / illegal weapons.
White phosporous when delivered by artillary shells produces a gas cloud which when inhaled burns you from the inside out and it's use against civilian areas whether or not there are military present is prohibited by international law thus the US military commited a war crime. Now instead of sitting in denial or worse, trying to justify it, accept it as it is and you might begin to understand why there is so much animosity to the US campaign in Iraq from the rest of the world.

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[Art]

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

It's difficult to be precise as to what weapons they were accused of having as at various times leading up to the invasion the US gov't said;

August 7, 2002 - US Vice-President Dick Cheney: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

September 12, 2002 - US President George Bush at the United Nations General Assembly: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

January 28, 2003 - George Bush in a State of the Union address: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

February 5, 2003 - US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council: "While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket-launchers and warheads containing a biological warfare agent to various locations ... in western Iraq."

March 16, 2003 - Dick Cheney press conference: "We believe he [Saddam] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong."

March 17, 2003 - George Bush in his address to the US before the war: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He obviously hadn't had a peep into his own arsenal.

 

[deckart]

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

How can you connect the Iraqi's to 9/11?

And he was over there to make money, not help their people.

 

[edward]

I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.

The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.

Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

 

[deckart]

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.
The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.
Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

You guys are right, it doesn't have to do with Iraq directly. But, from the information that we are being fed (which of course can be conflictiing) the resistance in Iraq is from insurgents that are not Iraqi. They are religious zealots willing to kill themselves to harm Iraqi's who desire democracy and Americans alike.
And I do not condone the use of napalm or napalm like weapons on civilian targets. That's just plain wrong and cannot be justified.