US attack on Fallujah
Nov 8th 2005, 8:36 pm
#1
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
US attack on Fallujah
Nov 8th 2005, 8:54 pm
#2
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by doctor scrumpy
Nov 8th 2005, 8:59 pm
#3
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 348
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Manc
bad link mate
Nov 8th 2005, 10:50 pm
#4
Pass me the Marmite..
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA.
Posts: 864
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Since when has Nepalm been a chemical weapon? Using that argument, gunpowder is a chemical-!!!
Nepalm is a horrible weapon but is limited to an area it is exploded in. Hopefully, not around any civilians. However, any "explosive" can be just as deadly or worse.
"Chemical weapons" - read anthrax is not even a close comparison.
Nepalm is a horrible weapon but is limited to an area it is exploded in. Hopefully, not around any civilians. However, any "explosive" can be just as deadly or worse.
"Chemical weapons" - read anthrax is not even a close comparison.
Nov 9th 2005, 12:22 am
#5
Not dead yet
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: In a world of my own where I know everyone
Posts: 15,042
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Get real it's war, people die in horrible ways a phosphorus grenade is as bad. There are no nice ways of doing it.
Nov 9th 2005, 12:34 am
#6
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,220
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by doctor scrumpy
Nov 9th 2005, 1:26 pm
#7
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Thydney
Get real it's war, people die in horrible ways a phosphorus grenade is as bad. There are no nice ways of doing it.
Nov 9th 2005, 1:28 pm
#8
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by rushman
IS the site itself leaning a little off centre?
Nov 9th 2005, 2:17 pm
#9
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: eating celery
Posts: 461
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
Next week: Marines clear Baghdad with paintball guns!
Nov 9th 2005, 4:53 pm
#10
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
If its the same video I saw recently, then they are trying to suggest the US used some weapon that didnt burn clothes but attacked skin 
The points to note are, though, that the US denied they have used napalm, when they did (mk77 variant). Also, troops were told that everyone in the city was an enemy combatant, when they were clearly not. On top of that, the US stated that WP was used only for illumination purposes. The video suggests that it was used offensively, but no proof was given.
The points to note are, though, that the US denied they have used napalm, when they did (mk77 variant). Also, troops were told that everyone in the city was an enemy combatant, when they were clearly not. On top of that, the US stated that WP was used only for illumination purposes. The video suggests that it was used offensively, but no proof was given.
Nov 9th 2005, 4:55 pm
#11
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by englishnurse
ahh... the dreaded paintball gun, its a weapon of evil
Napalm is not a WMD, conventional. Cluster bombs have also been misquoted in this context.
Nov 9th 2005, 5:00 pm
#12
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
I believe the consequent brusing would be as a result of a chemical action.
Napalm is not a WMD, conventional. Cluster bombs have also been misquoted in this context.
Napalm is not a WMD, conventional. Cluster bombs have also been misquoted in this context.
Nov 9th 2005, 5:20 pm
#13
.
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Where bad things rarely happen in movies
Posts: 8,933
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by franc11s
"Chemical weapons" - read anthrax is not even a close comparison.
And is anyone really surprised at this stage about lies about what may or may not have been used? Or the US (and probably the UK?) still using weapons that others have decided are too nasty....
Nov 9th 2005, 6:30 pm
#14
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,220
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Manc
the site is, but the article is sourced from a respected newspaper is it not?
Nov 9th 2005, 8:49 pm
#15
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Yorkieabroad
Is anthrax classed as chemical then? I would have thought it was biological, though I don't spend a lot of time thinking about these things......
And is anyone really surprised at this stage about lies about what may or may not have been used? Or the US (and probably the UK?) still using weapons that others have decided are too nasty....
And is anyone really surprised at this stage about lies about what may or may not have been used? Or the US (and probably the UK?) still using weapons that others have decided are too nasty....
Interestingly, anthrax was weaponised by the British during WW2, and stockpiled incase Germany used gas.
In answer to your question, no it no longer surprises me.
or 
??