War on terror - is it terrorism itself?

[Taz]

I've just read a shocking story:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle327094.ece

It's worth reading this article if you have strong views either way on the recent war in Iraq.

This really has sickened me to the core. There appears to be a high likelihood that American forces used white phosphorus shells when they entered Fallujah in Iraq last year. A great number of innocent civilians were killed and doctors treated many more that had their skin 'melted' by the use of these weapons.

These incendiary weapons are banned under an international treaty. For the innocent civilians exposed to these weapons it must have been one of the worst possible ways to die or be maimed for life.

I am glad that demonstrations outside US embassies have taken place about the use of these weapons. The US administration (to make a distinction between Bush and the American people) cannot have it both ways: on the one had it preaches moral values and 'democracy' and on the other hand it uses the most vile weapons imaginable against civilians.

So, with incidents like this, is the war on terror terrorism itself?

[DeludedGuy]

Im finding it hard to distinguish the difference between War and Terrorism with the events that have happened in the past few years.

[directhex]

I've just read a shocking story:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle327094.ece

It's worth reading this article if you have strong views either way on the recent war in Iraq.

This really has sickened me to the core. There appears to be a high likelihood that American forces used white phosphorus shells when they entered Fallujah in Iraq last year. A great number of innocent civilians were killed and doctors treated many more that had their skin 'melted' by the use of these weapons.

These incendiary weapons are banned under an international treaty. For the innocent civilians exposed to these weapons it must have been one of the worst possible ways to die or be maimed for life.

I am glad that demonstrations outside US embassies have taken place about the use of these weapons. The US administration (to make a distinction between Bush and the American people) cannot have it both ways: on the one had it preaches moral values and 'democracy' and on the other hand it uses the most vile weapons imaginable against civilians.

So, with incidents like this, is the war on terror terrorism itself?

america has not ratified the geneva convention, so is not governed by its rules.

[Taz]

America does not recognise the International Criminal Court either. Obviously, not recognising international treaties, the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court does not justify certain acts! The rest of the civilised world has a reference framework within which it operates.

[eldren]

There appears to be a high likelihood that American forces used white phosphorus shells when they entered Fallujah in Iraq last year.

Well, various US representatives have confirmed this, so I'd say it's safe to assume that this was the case.

A great number of innocent civilians were killed and doctors treated many more that had their skin 'melted' by the use of these weapons.

As the article states, however, it isn't proven that these civilians suffered these burns from the use of WP. There is a lot of confusion as to what actually caused the burns. The only confirmation that WP was used as a weapon at all is from a handful of soldiers who say WP was used against combatants in order to flush them out of hiding places.

These incendiary weapons are banned under an international treaty. For the innocent civilians exposed to these weapons it must have been one of the worst possible ways to die or be maimed for life.

The article states "The use of incendiary weapons such as WP and napalm against civilian targets - though not military targets - is banned by international treaty." This means that deliberately using it against civilians is against the treaty, not the use of WP as a whole. Unfortunately, as is the case with war, civilians get involved despite efforts to the contrary (For example, an evacuation was ordered). On the other hand, I agree that these weapons do have horrific effects.

The US administration (to make a distinction between Bush and the American people) cannot have it both ways: on the one had it preaches moral values and 'democracy' and on the other hand it uses the most vile weapons imaginable against civilians.

This is quite an irresponsible claim. You are saying that the US deliberately targets civilians in its war on terror. If this were truly the case, why bother ordering an evacuation at all? Why not just bomb the entire city? Statements like this, in my view, are little more than flamebait.

[DaBeeeenster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...642831,00.html

An additional article by George Monbiot today. Shocking.

[DaBeeeenster]

america has not ratified the geneva convention, so is not governed by its rules.

I guess that's ok then.

[directhex]

I guess that's ok then.

well, sure! they're not breaking the rules...

[[GSV]Trig]

Well look at the US's history.

Nukes
Napalm
White Phosphorus

Do we really think they give a toss about anyone other than themselves?

The intro animation to "Have I got news for you" sums it up nicely imho....

[TheAnimus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...642831,00.html

An additional article by George Monbiot today. Shocking.

The guardian is one of those papers which makes me question the merrits of free speach (kinda like last weeks episode of south park).

[badass]

The guardian is one of those papers which makes me question the merrits of free speach (kinda like last weeks episode of south park).

LOL so true.
They really seem to live in airy fairy land.

[specofdust]

Well, the US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, so, whether an operation like "Shock and Awe", which is basicly using fear/terror to achieve a political goal(terrorism), is or is not in your opinion terrorism, doesn't matter that much. They have funded and aided Terrorists throughout the world for the last 50 years.

Anyone who actually believes the goals of the US are anything other then self-intrested, is deluding themselves.

[DaBeeeenster]

The guardian is one of those papers which makes me question the merrits of free speach (kinda like last weeks episode of south park).

What does this have to do with the article I posted?

[TheAnimus]

What does this have to do with the article I posted?

The fact that the link as from the gardian has a lot to do about it think?

Is the most receint scandal over their editorial ways the terrorist (convicted) writing about the school girl's right to ware headdress?

I have more respect for the Sun, because it dosen't pretend its not telling you exactly what to think with subjects that aren't researched properly.

The mirror, you expect to be full of bunk too (esp when morgon was editor).

but the gardain trys to mascarade as a reliable news source, when in fact enless you want to turn the attick room into a giant cha cevara poster pot smoking farenhiet 9/11 watching den it has little place. (the print even comes off if you try to wipe your ass on it).

[Rave]

The fact that the link as from the gardian has a lot to do about it think?

Is the most receint scandal over their editorial ways the terrorist (convicted) writing about the school girl's right to ware headdress?

Eh?

but the gardain trys to mascarade as a reliable news source, when in fact enless you want to turn the attick room into a giant cha cevara poster pot smoking farenhiet 9/11 watching den it has little place. (the print even comes off if you try to wipe your ass on it).

Yeah nice one, rather than find fault with the linked article, why not just dismiss it and the paper it's published in using some crappy, unfunny stereotypes? Clearly, you are a great thinker.

[TheAnimus]

Yes, looking at a pervaour of informations background couldn't possible yeild results. Neither would historical studies.

If you use google, you can find out how they employed two convicted terrorists too write articals for them. If you think its a bit old and unrelevent then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...588595,00.html and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/readersedi...593644,00.html oopsie!

Now rather than fault the artical, i was commenting on news sources in general, and my general dislike for that particular paper, in a slightly comical manner.

Rather than just pick flaws in my comments, you just insult my intelegence. I'm so tempted to be hypocrytical.