Quake3World

Freakaloin wrote:wtf r u going on about u creepy weirdo?

You're saying we deserved to be nuked, but don't deserve attacks on civilians. I'm just saying you can't have one without the other.

edit: MORON!

i didn't say shit about civilians moron...

evil

this shit should be settled like 1v1

like that startrek episode , kirk against that lizerd guy.

Arena

R00k wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:i want that documentary...

English version already up:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchi ... ah_ING.wmv

good documentary, and pretty horrific. a stark contrast to the sanitised and embedded bullshit we get on the mainstream news programmes

I'm honestly pretty fucking upset by that documentary.

good thing theres the geneva convention

lol...now its being widely reported...finally...but still not on msnbfoxcnntv...

I watched it last night. I have to say that there were some parts in it that were made to sound like extreme acts of inexcusable aggression, but were really just normal wartime fare - like shooting at a civilian car that is driving toward you at 40 mph.

But on the whole that stuff was filler for the real bombshell of this documentary, and they did a good job of presenting it as complete fact.

It's hard to argue that we're a defending country with noble goals in this conflict, when they have actual live footage of us carpet bombing an entire city with white phosphorus. It's also pretty fucking sickening to see regular civilians killed inside their homes with their clothes still intact but their flesh burned off their bodies.

I can sometimes see the justification even of shooting people waving white flags, when they are running toward you, and you have seen children fighting and people used as human shields to get to you.
But I have a real problem with this. Not only is it extremely upsetting to watch, but the only thing I can think of during all this, is that people in the top of our government, made the decisions to use these banned weapons, and completely destroyed our reputation around the world for being supporters and defenders of god-given human rights. It's only that much worse because they are doing all this in the name of so-called liberty, democracy and freedom, using the words like they have no idea what they really mean.

I think that if a lot of Americans saw this video they would start seeing serious problems with their glorious leader's strategy and integrity, if they haven't already.

And once again, it's even more disgusting that first-hand stories of this have been circulating on the web and in blogs for over a year, yet nobody believed it because they didn't want to.

That film is by no means impartial and unbiased. It starts with an immediate attack on american activity. I think the american soldier was the most direct and truthful source, but even his report in this film was jaded by the film's attempt to skew events, especially through emotional tactics. For one, cut out the fucking audio clips of desperation-sounding wailing. Its ridiculous. Second, dont attempt to push civilian deaths as an equal attempt by the american military to killing insurgents. It's not true, and will never be true. Yes civilians died, but as the soldier put it, they were killed out of self defense in some cases and in other cases by indirect "collateral" damage. I agree the phosphorous was and is an "illegal" device, and should be investigated much more. However, to claim and push that the civilian casualties from this were the desired effect is ludicrous.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08112005/325/u ... lians.html

well the military admits using it...they ay they didn't target civilians though...wow that mean they just admitted to war crimes...

just watch that film at the 18:00 mark and u can see how the white phosphorus spreads a kill zone in a large area...hey just like nerve agents work...but even more effective...

Canis wrote:That film is by no means impartial and unbiased. It starts with an immediate attack on american activity. I think the american soldier was the most direct and truthful source, but even his report in this film was jaded by the film's attempt to skew events, especially through emotional tactics. For one, cut out the fucking audio clips of desperation-sounding wailing. Its ridiculous. Second, dont attempt to push civilian deaths as an equal attempt by the american military to killing insurgents. It's not true, and will never be true. Yes civilians died, but as the soldier put it, they were killed out of self defense in some cases and in other cases by indirect "collateral" damage. I agree the phosphorous was and is an "illegal" device, and should be investigated much more. However, to claim and push that the civilian casualties from this were the desired effect is ludicrous.

???

The point of the movie wasn't to illuminate some conspiracy of ours to kill more civilians than soldiers. The point of the movie was that we did indiscriminately kill civilians in Fallujah with the stuff - that was the tactic we used. If actual video of phosphorous showers blanketing the city isn't enough to convince you that it was a tactic we used, then why even bother watching it?

I mentioned the use of phosphorous was a bad thing and should be investigated. However, I was voicing my disapproval of their journalistic tactics. I think their casting of a negative light on what's clearly self-defense (in some of the reported cases - others, such as the helicopter attack, are clearly american aggression) is sensationalism, and is just as bad as fox news and other conservative right-wing based news agencies. That ending scene of death had nothing to do with phosphorous or civilian casualties. They dont even attempt to explain it, but rather just let it resonate as most sensationalistic, biased media does with such images. Beyond the point of going after the use of phosphorous, they attempted to push the focus of military targets to being indescriminate killing of civilians. It's a bias I dont approve of, regardless of the topic of the main report.

Canis wrote:That film is by no means impartial and unbiased.

R00k wrote:I watched it last night. I have to say that there were some parts in it that were made to sound like extreme acts of inexcusable aggression, but were really just normal wartime fare - like shooting at a civilian car that is driving toward you at 40 mph.

But on the whole that stuff was filler for the real bombshell of this documentary, and they did a good job of presenting it as complete fact.

So I pretty much agree with you on that part. I also thought it was a little dodgy when they had to coach that biologist on what to say, even though I guess it's understandable since he doesn't seem to be very fluent in English.

Canis wrote:It starts with an immediate attack on american activity.

You mean they criticized us napalming Vietnamese villages?!?!?! ! :icon22:
That hardly makes them biased now does it? Not to mention, the backstory on certain weapons was necessary to show why the things were banned in the first place.

Canis wrote:I think the american soldier was the most direct and truthful source, but even his report in this film was jaded by the film's attempt to skew events, especially through emotional tactics. For one, cut out the fucking audio clips of desperation-sounding wailing. Its ridiculous.

I don't remember exactly which part you're talking about with the desperation-sounding wailing - what context it was in, I mean, or what part of the video. But most war documentaries - even war movies - do include that kind of stuff when they are trying to emphasize people's pain or whatever. That doesn't immediately mean these people are America-Haters(tm).

At any rate, the only reason I watched this documentary to begin with, was to see if they really had some sort of "smoking-gun" evidence (excuse the buzzword) that we used chemical or banned weapons over there; and unfortunately, it looks like they do.

Not the napalm, I meant the "is it true you were told to attack children that were 10 years old?" The napalm bit was just part of the sensationalistic aspect of the film that I dont approve of (similar to the last little killing clip), but its not what I meant by "the immediate attack". I think they were trying to goad the american guy into directly saying or admitting they killed kids indescriminately.

The wailing was the "music" in the background when they showed the wounded and dead iraqis. Its a cinematic effect used to spike emotion in movies, and to see it done in a "news" documentary is ridiculous to me. It skews the perception of the situation, even though the depicted situation is already horrendous. Its just bad journalism and makes it even harder for any non civilian-included american effort to be justified.

I agree they have good evidence of the use of banned ordinance. I'm not too keen on the specifics of what is or isnt banned, and why, so I am not going to jump on phosphorous as being similar to infecting the population with Hep-C or something. Nevertheless, it should be investigated and those who authorized it should be held accountable if it turns out the phosphorous was not to be used.

Canis apologizing for war crimes again

Dont laugh yourself into naivity again Puff...

Point taken.

Phosphorus isn't banned. It's used a lot of times to illuminate enemy positions in the dark. But when it makes contact with human skin it causes a chemical reaction that burns it completely. So when it is used as a weapon, it is a chemical weapon.

Napalm is banned, and has been for a long time.

Yeah, I agree. I believe its use should be investigated thoroughly. That goes for other ordinance as well. I dont believe the government's claims of what has and hasnt been used, so its good that the film showed the helicopter launching this stuff out. I still think the point of the film could have been summed up with the interview of the american soldier followed directly by the clip of the helicopter...that would have said it all.

Yea, I'm sure it could have been said in 5-10 minutes, but that wouldn't have made it long enough for a time slot, so I assume they needed the filler. The biologist's interview was a little revealing as well, and the images were necessary.

I'm surprised they didn't touch on the depleted uranium TBH.

Canis wrote:Dont laugh yourself into naivity again Puff...

our past discussions show who has been the naive one

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Canis wrote:Dont laugh yourself into naivity again Puff...

our past discussions show who has been the naive one

Dont kid yourself into false conclusions. You have a knack for skirting the points I make in order to find some contradiction in my posts, which add nothing to the conversation at hand. Scraping the barrel will get you nowhere.

He has a knack for making shit up too.