http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnDw...layer_embedded
I couldn't find any evidence that white phosphorous causes mutation.
Apparently Uranium based weapons used in that region could be to blame, though.
The fact remains the same that these infant deaths are not caused by conventional weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There's a big difference between unconventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Railguns are unconventional, but they are not a weapon of mass destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Then again the US itself has politically warped the term beyond all recognition so that it now resembles newspeak. I remember when that guy tried to set off a car bomb recently, he was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. A homemade chemical bomb.
Railguns, as far as I understand, don't incorporate chemical, biological, or radiological compounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
So pepper spray is a weapon of mass destruction?
Please try to exercise self criticism before posting.
Did you know that people in the USA are being charged with being in posession of a weapon of mass destruction for posessing marijuana? Because under Patriot Acts I & II marijuana endangers human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The horrendous carnage that has happened to the women and children of Fallujah is disgusting, and that came about by weapons incorporating chemical and radiological agents - weapons of mass destruction as Colin Powell himself would agree. I don't need to criticise myself. Comment is free but facts are sacred.
If you do not criticize yourself, how will you know if you are right?
Anyway, weapons of mass destruction should really be weapons that cause destruction on a massive scale (derp). Things like nukes, or the smallpox virus.
But if you want to use the perverted way in which it is often used, then you don't need to look at Fallujah for hypocrisy. Every missile fired, for example, would constitute a weapon of mass destruction.
Please give a source for the marijuana thing, though.
Though I don't know if I'd call it "a weapon of mass destruction," (you can see why, above^) it's sufficient enough to say that they used white phosphorous as a way of getting the same results of a banned weapon (napalm), through an alternate means - effectively circumventing the ban - which they then lied about having used it as a weapon. I made a thread on Israel having done the same, some time ago.
http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/rain-f...us-gaza-75654/
And the lies about Agent Orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
No, but nearly all other firearms on the planet do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Xei has pointed out the problem with your usage of the term "weapon of mass destruction", so now I'm just picking a little fun on you. I agree though, that using these kinds of weapons isn't acceptable. On the other hand I don't really care.
The US is allowed to use WMDs, it's the other countries that aren't allowed to use them. Word of advice, get rid of your chemical weapons or we'll chemically attack you. Don't think we won't do it. :P
Politicians use buzz words as much as possible because the majority of americans are very stupid and poorly educated (public schools.) Like calling wikileaks a terror organization. Really? Is wikileaks killing innocent people. No, only all muslims do that. That's what I heard on Fox anyway.
Yeah. At 24, the mother of my child nearly died, because of a tumor on her heart, which she was told was a birth defect from her father's Agent Orange exposure - and he's an American Vet. Further proof that we don't know (or claim not to know) the full impact of some of the shit we're just itching to use on the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Colin Powell adressed the United Nations Security Council stating that military intervention was necessary to halt Iraq's chemical, biologial and radiological weapons programs as Iraq had supposedly breached its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Yet a year later the US military is using such weapons indiscriminately against the Iraqi people. A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans. Undertakers in Fallujah burying on average five babies a day constitutes significant harm to a large number of humans. Once again Why do I need to criticise myself? The facts clearly speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Will do, I will see if I can dig up the news reports again for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The use of white phosphorous in Iran has been known for a while now.
Also from a strategic perspective, the substance is usually rather used to target civilians than in combat situations.
Unicef Photo of the Year 2010 | Global development | guardian.co.ukQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Quote:
The Vietnam war ended in 1975. The US withdrew their troops and north and south Vietnam were reunited. But for the Vietnamese people the legacy of American warfare continues. US forces used the herbicide Agent Orange to destroy foliage that the north Vietnamese were using as cover. Agent Orange contains dioxins that are known to cause cancer and damage genes. The effects of the toxic substance can be seen among Vietnamese people to this day, such as cancer, immune disorders and severe deformities. According to official estimates, 1.2 million children, including nine-year-old Nguyen Thi Ly, are disabled. In rural areas, the percentage of disabled children is significantly higher than in urban areas
Iraqis also aren't allowed to torture prisoners. Only we can do that.
Again here we have massive breaches of International law. Hours after this speech was made fromer SAS trooper Ben Griffin was served an injunction by the High Court of England and Wales not to make any more public speeches.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb50-ouA-IA
Article 10: Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 2000 grants freedom of speech to England doesn't it?
Better than what happens in the US. The US isn't allowed to order someone not to make public speeches, so our government would call people like him a terrorist and make him disappear :/
I have asked Ben about this amongst other issues but I haven't had a reply from him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I'm not so sure. There is a lovely elderly man, a long term public member of the Labour party. He attended a Labour party conference in Brighton and shouted from the audience calling Jack Straw a liar as he was making a speech. He was dragged away forcefully by security guards and then arrested by the police under the Terrorism Act of 2000. Jack Straw was the Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006. I believe the US had or has better freedom of information laws than in the UK. I believe the freedom of information laws in the US were dismantled to a degree whilst George Bush junior was president.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
The US government doesn't care about our laws, Bush pushed something called The PATRIOT Act, which removed 4 of our basic rights. Torture is also against US law as well as international law, but we certainly do it. There are pictures of americans torturing prisoners online. Freedom of information laws mean nothing anymore.
In the US, in order for laws to mean something, the courts have to work. People that he government labels as a terrorist don't go to court, they go directly to gauntanimo bay. Most likely they did that because the CIA, FBI, and most other agencies are terrified of a group called the American Civil Liberties Union, so they didn't won't the ACLU to be able to fight back.
Yes Indeed I did think that it was the Patriot Act that was part of the process of dismantling freedom of information.
P.S. Do you do a lot of meditation?
The U.S. does not have a problem with WMD's in general. We are not considering war with France, Britain, or Russia over their having them, for some examples. Our problem is with irrational terrorist governments having them. It is like how American laws are not against the mere ownership of a gun. Our laws are against convicted felons having guns, but not against responsible people. Cops are not hypocrites for using guns to arrest convicted felons for owning guns.
What does that have to do with Iraq though?
I assume the OP was referring to our problem with the multiple source, international intelligence we had that the Hussein regime possessed WMD's and was working on making more. The Hussein regime funded and trained terrorists and terrorist organizations and engaged in terrorism of their own, and even used WMD's (sarin gas) in a terrorist attack against the Kurds. The Hussein regime wasn't exactly the government of France.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei