Saddam's defense team plans to sue Bush, Blair

[zerojunkie]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1659A21F6D.htm


hahahahahaha, good luck on that one.

[PETA]

Does this guy have any intelligence value left?


If not why don't we just call up the Kurds and let them know we'll be drpping off Saddam in remote location X at 7:00am tomorow?

[Nyteshade]

I'm sick of seeing this come up.

Napalm was NOT used in the Nov 04 push in Fallujah neither was WP used to target civilians. Depleted Uranium is a legal subsatance used in armor piercing rounds. It is not a WMD.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade1

I'm sick of seeing this come up.

Napalm was NOT used in the Nov 04 push in Fallujah neither was WP used to target civilians. Depleted Uranium is a legal subsatance used in armor piercing rounds. It is not a WMD.

lol - waits for the thundering heard to point out how wrong you are. How little you know etc etc.

[Nyteshade]

Well I base my post on having been there while it was happening.

[zerojunkie]

Yeah...waiting for the WP's a chemical weapon crowd to see this too.


And yeah, we should just off Saddam and be done with it.

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade1

I'm sick of seeing this come up.

Napalm was NOT used in the Nov 04 push in Fallujah neither was WP used to target civilians. Depleted Uranium is a legal subsatance used in armor piercing rounds. It is not a WMD.

Then why are US troops, journalists and civilians that were in Fallujah at that time stating that this is true? I've not only read but seen US troops talking about when they hear on their radio "whiskey" witch refer to the WP wepons. There is also photographic evidence of WP so I'm curious where you're getting your information from. I can see the military trying to cover up this type of information so the existance of disinformation is not surprising at all. Were you stationed on Fallujah during that time?

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade1

I'm sick of seeing this come up.

Napalm was NOT used in the Nov 04 push in Fallujah neither was WP used to target civilians. Depleted Uranium is a legal subsatance used in armor piercing rounds. It is not a WMD.

ehem.

[Vosh]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Yeah...waiting for the WP's a chemical weapon crowd to see this too.


And yeah, we should just off Saddam and be done with it.

Doesn't that just make him into a type of martyr for the people thinking he's the good guy. Not to mention if we don't go through a trial and officially hold him accountable then it kind of ruins the notion of ... well... I dunno. Insert Something Good Here

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Vosh

Doesn't that just make him into a type of martyr for the people thinking he's the good guy. Not to mention if we don't go through a trial and officially hold him accountable then it kind of ruins the notion of ... well... I dunno. Insert Something Good Here

yeah, you're right...let me rephrase that. If emotions got the best of me, and I was king of the world, I'd just off him.

[Nyteshade]

Then why are US troops, journalists and civilians that were in Fallujah at that time stating that this is true? I've not only read but seen US troops talking about when they hear on their radio "whiskey" witch refer to the WP wepons. There is also photographic evidence of WP so I'm curious where you're getting your information from. I can see the military trying to cover up this type of information so the existance of disinformation is not surprising at all. Were you stationed on Fallujah during that time?

Yes, I was. Read the last post I made.

I have said this many times before. White Phosphorus is a LEGAL incendiary weapon used for illumination purposes. It was not used to specifically target civilians. 99.9% of the time, the round has burnt out about 1 minute before it reaches the ground. If you wanted to burn people to death, it would be much more cost efficient to shoot them with a WP 203 round rather than a 155mm howitzer. Even then it would be a waste of ammo.

And a news flash, INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE IN WAR!!! It is a very sad fact but true. It is especially true in an urban environment where there are a lot of civilians present. This is called collateral damage. We are trained to minimize it as much as possible but there is no way to completely eliminate it.

what are the chances that they actually file a suit? i think this is just posturing for the media... anything to get him on the cover of the newspaper

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade1

Yes, I was. Read the last post I made.

I have said this many times before. White Phosphorus is a LEGAL incendiary weapon used for illumination purposes. It was not used to specifically target civilians. 99.9% of the time, the round has burnt out about 1 minute before it reaches the ground. If you wanted to burn people to death, it would be much more cost efficient to shoot them with a WP 203 round rather than a 155mm howitzer. Even then it would be a waste of ammo.
.

I agree that it would be more efficient to use something else. It seems to be a debatable subject and could be used in a case like this. Both Saddam and the US have used WP, and regardless if its used for illumination purposes it has still killed a lot of people witch can classify it as a chemical wepon. The DOD classifies it as a chemical wepon but then again its possible the whole illumination thing could be legal loophole terminology. There are troops such as yourself that give the the textbook "illumination" answer and there are others stationed there that are saying its being used as a weapon.

Either way its an interesting debate that has many human right activists up in arms.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/en/body.asp

provides some interesting points of view including the official US declaration about a documentary called “Fallujah: the hidden massacre” It also includes blogs from people that were there and troops stationed there describing a masacre that would provide legal ammunition to Saddam's case. We'll see how it goes. Granted colateral damage does happen however there is a strong argument to show that the damage was intentional or extremely excessive.

Didn't Saddam's defense attorney get killed recently anyways?

[zerojunkie]

uh oh, I knew that video was coming. I don't seem to recall you ever sticking around and defending it the last time you posted it.

[Nyteshade]

The only DOD document that even remotely sounds like WP is a chemical weapon is this one.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...31050_91r.html

However the wording is very loose on those terms and does not mean the DOD has ever officially classified WP as a chemical weapon. If I was still in the Marines, I would have access to more direct material to refute your argument. However I will admit that WP was used against MILITARY targets (i.e. enemy personnel), which is legal, but never intentionally against civilians. The entire time we had to here about winning the hearts and minds of the general population. How would we accomplish that by killing them intentionally and prolonging the conflict?