Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Here is a link for you saying differently...

Posted By: sm on 2008-11-08
In Reply to: US used mustard and nerve gas in Fallujah. - Pot calls kettle black? sm

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html


Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?


Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq






The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – AL Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.




 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Some may view that differently.......
When I was little and my grandfather said pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on, he simply meant do the best you can, lean on God and do not expect yourself to be able to handle EVERYTHING yourself. Somehow politics gets pulled into the meaning, when it shouldn't really. It used to be a phrase thrown out there to encourage others to get up and on the saddle again, so to speak, and just get moving without waiting for everyone else to do it for you. Do the best you can in whatever you do.
It''s too bad you feel you have to "cure" those who think differently

And that you classify such thinking as wrong.


Perhaps you should spend some time thinking on that.


I think history will look at Bush differently
Bush has become the guy we love to hate. But I think years from now, history will view him far more kindly.

Especially if things go the way the polls tell us and we end up with O.

I guess we all see things differently. LOL
Right now I'm angry at CNN, in particular my old bud, Lou Dobbs.  It seems to me they are doing their dead level best to see McCain elected even while trashing his air head running mate.
I meant their (I was wording it differently and then

oops


He most certainly will be judged differently -- less harshly!
It rode into the white house on the race card and for a while no one will look past the historical fact that he is the first African-American president.  Who cares if he has experience -- he makes pretty speeches and he is an articulate black man.   If you are not an Obama supporter and you are critical of his policitics and changes, that same race card will be thrown at you! 
Doubt that I would feel differently
We have all become so incredibly thin-skinned. I have Irish and Polish blood and you can tell jokes about either of those and I'm not offended.

For that matter, I have a cousin who has an autistic child who participated in the Special Olympics and he's a h*ll of a bowler, could beat the snot out of Obama in a bowling match.

I am not up in arms. I feel no differently about him today....
than I did yesterday, and I shouldn't. In my opinion, it is up to him to change my mind. He said basically for those of you whose respect I have not as yet earned...I am one of those people. He can either solidify what I think about him, or he can change my mind. It is up to him. Being bashed and belittled by his followers does not help his case.
Guess we all handle things differently
If I were you I'd just let it go. Not worth the frustration.

Anyway...it's a beautiful weekend here (well if you call 50 degs and rainy beautiful), but it's the weekend and I'm going to enjoy it. Going to make myself a cup of hot cocoa and get warmed up. Hope you have a good weekend.
Will Obama be judged differently because he's black?

I never gave this a thought. The previous incumbent was so poor and Palin scared the bejesus out of me and McCain isn't that much of a maverick and doesn't know squat economically that I never let race enter into my voting decision. For me it was an obvious choice. (Not my first choice but by Nov. my only choice.)


If you read through this cnn.com article, you'll read that blacks who were innovative do feel they're or were held to different standards.


The very fact that this article is worthy of being printed surprises me.


=========================================


(CNN) -- Just days before he was sworn in, President Obama was giving his daughters a tour of the Lincoln Memorial when one of them pointed to a copy of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address carved into the wall.


Obama's 7-year-old daughter, Sasha, told her father that Lincoln's speech was really long. Would he have to give a speech as long? Obama's answer was completed by his older daughter, 10-year-old Malia.


"I said, 'Actually, that one is pretty short. Mine may even be a little longer,' " Obama told CNN recently. "At which point, Malia turns to me and says, 'First African-American president, better be good.' "


The story is light-hearted, but it touches on a delicate question: Will people hold Obama to a different standard because he is the first African-American president?


Americans appear split by race on that answer. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 53 percent of blacks say the American public will hold Obama to a higher standard than past presidents because he is black. Most whites -- 61 percent -- say Obama's race will not matter in how he will be judged.


The question divided several people who were racial pioneers themselves.


Alexander Jefferson was one of the first blacks allowed to become a fighter pilot. He was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black pilots who escorted bombers in World War II.


"We had to be twice as good to be average," he says.


Obama won't face the same pressures he did because his presidential predecessor was so inept, Jefferson says.


"No, the world is ready for him," he says. "The [George W.] Bush debacle was so depressing."


Jefferson was shot down by ground fire on his 19th mission and spent a year in German prison camps. He wrote about his POW experiences in "Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free: Memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman and POW."


Jefferson says he dealt with the pressures of being a racial pioneer by drawing on the strength of black leaders who opened doors for him.


"I sit on the backs of everyone who came before me," says Jefferson, who attended Obama's inauguration with other Tuskegee Airmen.


Jefferson says he would have emotionally imploded if he'd thought too much about the pressures of representing all blacks and dealing with the racism he encountered when he returned home to a segregated America after the war.


"I did what I had to do so I didn't go stark-raving mad," he says. "There wasn't all this self-analysis and back and forth. I was too damn busy with a wife, a child and a mortgage."


Michele Andrea Bowen couldn't avoid a bout of constant self-analysis. She was one of the first African-American students admitted to a doctorate program in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


"I know Obama is going to be held to a different standard," says Bowen, author of "Up at the College" and books such as "Holy Ghost Corner," which celebrate black faith and culture.


Bowen says she faced relentless scrutiny, and so will Obama.


"You know that it was hard for you to get in it, and you know they're watching you," Bowen says. "And you know that they're judging you by a critical standard that's sometimes not fair."


Bowen says a white classmate, her partner in dissertation, once confided to her that he received the same grades as she did, even though he knew his work was inferior.


"It toughened me up," Bowen says. "It can give you headaches and stomachaches. I learned you have to be thankful that God blessed you with that opportunity. At some point, you stop worrying, and you trust God."


'Would Bush have been president if he were black?'


Perhaps Obama will avoid those stomachaches because of the massive good will his election has generated. But that could change quickly if Obama makes a controversial decision or a mistake, says Andrew Rojecki, co-author of "The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America."


Rojecki says people who say Obama isn't going to be held to a different standard because of his skin color didn't pay attention to his campaign.


He says Obama had to deal with challenges that other candidates didn't have to face. Obama's run for office was almost ended by his association with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary sermons shocked many.


But Republican presidential nominee John McCain's relationship with the Rev. John Hagee, who was accused of anti-Semitism, never threatened to end his campaign, Rojecki says.


"Obama was held responsible for what his minister said, and McCain was associated with Hagee, but somehow that didn't stick," says Rojecki, a communication professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


Even people who regard themselves as the most progressive, open-minded supporters may subconsciously hold Obama to a different standard, Rojecki says.


He says several academic studies show that it often takes people longer to associate good qualities to blacks when different faces are flashed across a screen.


"They have these stereotypes buried in their subconscious," he says. "That's why people cross the street when they see a young black man. They'd rather not take a chance."


Obama virtually had to be perfect to overcome those stereotypes, Rojecki says. He was the first black Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he has an Ivy League-educated wife and adorable daughters, and he ran a great campaign.


"He's the perfect symbol of achievement," Rojecki says.


White candidates for office don't have to have an uninterrupted life of achievement to be considered for the Oval Office, Rojecki says.


"If George W. Bush were black, do you think he would be president?" Rojecki says.


Jefferson, the Tuskegee Airman, says Obama should have at least one consolation. The problems he confronts now are so immense that anyone, even someone who was considered by many to be perfect, would not be able to escape withering judgment.


"If the president was Jesus Christ, '' Jefferson says, "they would still debate if he's qualified."


 


You'll think differently when it all comes to pass...O will be a failure and make us

post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Okay, thanks, that's not what my link said. SM

Mine also said he failed to mention this case when being questioned.  Well, there's a thousand stories out there.  It really doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect how I think of him one way or the other.


Link

Here is one link to it:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/eveningnews/main692497.shtml


But this is not where I originally saw it - I believe it was covered on PBS which is where I saw it.


here is the link

I didnt want to put the report here as there is some profanity that Bush has used to his staff but here is the link. 


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml


 


trying again with the link
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml
link
http://www.filmstripinternational.com/index.php?asshole
Link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032100452.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email
If you can't see it try this link.sm
http://www.justcomments.com/funnycomments-images/oh_no.gif
- see link
sign the petition
Link
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Better link...sm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-pett18jun18,0,3422826.story

Its the first cartoon on the right.
Link please. Thanks. nm

Here's the link.

By the way, that wasn't a good quote.  That was a GREAT quote.  In fact, your entire post was great.  Thanks very much for posting it.  You are so right and I couldn't agree with you more. 


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/red_alert_for_staged_terror_attack.htm


The link says
it is a 'malformed video.'  Let me guess.  Bush lied.
See link below.nm
12
Thanks for the link.
This whole thing is so ironic.  Maybe Iraqi troops will be the next to come and participate in Bush's martial law.
No link..nm

The Link
The link to Bush Body Count is in the original post. Again, I don't believe a word of it, because I believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty.

See link

What's the deal guys?


You said you cannot get the whole link...
to come up without it being cut off.  It's too long?  So, you go to tinyurl, cut and paste your long link, and they will make the link shorter for you. 
How odd--try link below
   www.americanIssuesProject.org  That will take you to the same thing, including an article about Obama.
Link...
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Link
Click the link below:
see link
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/BIZ/712200327
See link

Good article - really talks about how nasty the media has been in this, and also more.- good read


http://www.gazette.net/stories/09122008/polilee181803_32478.shtml


 


 


Thanks for the link....sm
So true about the media, isn't it?

Also saw this on CNN last night, and was surprised that they allowed this viewpoint on their website.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/beck.palin/index.html
Thanks for the link
I've read it and can't tell if it is a more favorable article towards the republicans or democrats, so don't have anything to argue about that. However, the study only worked on 45 people? They are basing a study on just 45 people when the US is made up of 301,139,947 people (as of Jul 07). Like I say, I can't tell by the article which political group this benefits but it just seems to be an unreasonable basis to base the way a whole country votes on just 45 people (and all from the same region of the US) - again not sure if Nebraska is more liberal or conservative. Just seems like an invalid study to me.
here is another link about the same
see if this one comes through...

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n
I don't know if this will help at all, but try this link. sm
www.PatriotPost.US

It is a conservative newsletter that, IMO, tries to present an equally balanced view of what is going on. It is not always in easy to understand words, but you get an explanation that makes sense of what is going on.

Try it, you might just be surprised.
Link please sm

Ahmadinejad Feted at Obama Fundraiser’s Hotel


 


I went on the website you referenced and could not find this.  Please back it up with the actual link. 


see link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/debate_fact_check
I would like the link too
so I can see for myself.  Thanks.
When you go to this link s/m
take the Match-O-Matic quiz at the right. It gives you quotes from each candidate and you have to choose which one you agree with the most and at the end, it matches you with the candidate you chose most often. Let's see how well we all know the candidates we are backing based only on what they have said.
link

I'm sorry that I didn't save the link to the video clip I mentioned.  I did a search for Obama messiah on Youtube just now and I didn't find the one I mentioned.  Much to my surprise there were tons of such videos with accusations.  What I did find was this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyEZdy-Rag&feature=related  (Again, I don't know how to make a link but copy and paste in your browser.  It appears to be the real deal.  I didn't watch it all the way through as I am really, really busy today, so you can watch it and draw your own conclusions. 


If you go to youtube and search for Obama messiah you'll probably find the original one I was talking about which I believe to be a fake.  The above link, appears to me to be Obama himself in his own voice with his recognizable body language.


Try this link instead

what link would that have been?
x
This link's for you.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

This link's for you.
I usually give news accounts but in this case I think wiki has a really thorough description of the indident here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann
You have to scroll about 2/3rd of the way down where you will see Calling for the investigation of the members of congress, reaction and partial retraction. Video is on YouTube which I really suggest you watch to get the full impact...it's really different than reading about it.

Here's another article from MN
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/31261989.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsr

Let me know if you have any problem with the video and I'll find another link for that.
Thanks for the link.
x
See link
http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/10232008.htm