Sgrena's Fallujah vs. US Marines' Fallujah

Earlier I reported on Giuliana Sgrena's version of Fallujah. She called the Marine invasion of that city a 'massacre' and accused the Marines of dropping napalm on civilians. Blackfive has this after-action report done by a US Marine who was in Fallujah. Compare the two versions.

Hmmm I wonder if this from the Marine:

Footholds are strongpoints where the squad can fight from. At the foothold Marines can return fire, throw grenades, and use explosive devices to neutralize the enemy. After the enemy has been damaged the squad can move in and clear the house. If the roof top is the foothold the squad is holding, then the roof could be breached by a directional charge. Grenades or incendiary devices can be thrown into the structure flushing out the enemy......

[from a list of demolition devices Marines used in Fallujah and should be familiar with for future urban-warfare situations]

2. “House Guest” (Named by 2nd squad, 1st platoon, I Company) – Propane tanks placed in the central hallway with C-4 used to ignite it, creates a fuel air explosive – Used for bringing down a house when contact is made inside, propane tanks must be full

3. A 60 or 81 mm white phosphorous mortar round, wrapped three times with detonation cord and a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of C-4 – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

4. Molotov cocktails – one part liquid laundry detergent, two parts gas – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out.

might just explain this wacky theory of Sgrena's and the "truth is out there" sqadrons of the Left:
«We buried them, but we could not identify them because they were charred from the napalm bombs used by the Americans». People from Saqlawiya village, near Falluja, told al Jazeera television, based in Qatar... The sad story of common graves, which started at Saddam’s times, is not yet finished. Nobody could confirm if napalm bombs have been used in Falluja, but other bodies found last year after the fierce battle at Baghdad airport were also completely charred and some thought of nuclear bombs.
And the Left continues to believe this woman's alternate reality......[hat tip: Ace]

Posted by: Rusty at 01:25 PM

Comments

1 the enemy is the enemy is the enemy.

this hag is the enemy. she should be dead. thier is no way to argue she is not a friend of the killers and former regime and terrorists in iraq. in my world view you kill your enemies becuase that is what they plan for you. and this hag has shown over and over she plans to aid in american deaths.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 08, 2005 04:10 PM

2 is that comment serious? I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Everywhere I turn, more evidence that America has bred a nation ignorant, lazy bigots. The school yard bully will ultimately get what they deserve. America is a bully. Do you realise that?

Posted by: concerned non American at March 08, 2005 05:31 PM

3 "Concerned", you seem ignorant of the point of the post above, that the side using indiscriminate flammable weapons in Fallujah was the terrorists that had taken over the town.

Obviously, from your comment, you don't intend to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 08, 2005 06:16 PM

4 Each side will report the news in a light that best represents their interests. America is notorious for misleading its people through the media. Believe whoever you want...


As long as 'Rumcrook' realises that America is teaching a brand new generation of Iraqis, Palestinians, and Middle Easterners in general that "the enemy is the enemy is the enemy." Your enemy might be terrorism (whatever that is).

Their enemy is just one word too, and the USA taught them it - America

Posted by: concerned non American at March 08, 2005 07:53 PM

5 Kudos to Jawa for making Google's daily email digest of Marine news.
BlackFive's posting of the Marine squad's after action report should be required reading at our universities, but, of course, will not be.

Posted by: dadofusmcgrunt at March 08, 2005 08:12 PM

6 I hate to say this, but jellied gasoline *is* napalm. A field expedient version of napalm used to be made from soap flakes and gasoline. Using liquid detergent as a thickening agent would also fill the bill.

Mr. Roberts, according to the AAR, the Marines themselves were using the Molotov cocktails.

Note: As I have mentioned in a previous posting, I used to be an American soldier. It doesn't bother me in the least that the Marines used Molotov cocktails and other flame devices while fighting in Fallujah.

Posted by: Mark Flacy at March 08, 2005 08:49 PM

7 "concerned nonamerican", evidently you are not watching the news. The Middle East is learning something you never figured that they would. They are learning what President Bush wanted them to learn. That they can take their destiny away from the despots and terrorists. The Lebanese have figured it out even if you haven't.

Oh, and "Rumcrook", that's hilarious. Slander is your only argument?

Posted by: SPQR at March 08, 2005 10:37 PM

8 Mark, my mistake. On first reading, I thought the marine was describing boobytraps he'd encountered. Thanks for the correction.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 08, 2005 10:43 PM

9 slander? I cant explain something to someone who wouldnt get it anyway, like non american, who thinks we acted against terror sponsor regimes in afghanistan and iraq in a vacuum, 911 never happened, nor the embassy bombings or the cole, or the attempt to bring down the trade towers in 93. no, inhis pathetic world view we arent fighting a fight started by an evil enemy we just decided to fight back for kicks and giggles becuase were bullies.

and as for the commie slut, she has financed our enemies. she has spread propaganda and outright lies which will be used by our enemies to gin up more support for the ultimate goal of killing americans, which is what the commie slut wants, more dead americans, so I will continue to call her what ever I feel appropriate, becuase she deserves no respect.

that she is an enemy of america and a soldier of sorts for the forces of darkness, which is what communism is, along with islamofascism, is beyond dispute. so I am only sorry they didnt put one between her eyes.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 08, 2005 11:01 PM

10 You, rumcrook, and your group think buddies disgust me and every thinking human being within a ten mile radius. You advocate the murder of those who disagree with you politically because you cannot defeat them any other way - with words, logic, reason or thought. As an American, I'm sickened beyond words at that. As a real Christian, I'm horrified to think this is what it's come down to - misogynist hate-filled bigoted zealots whose decision making ability and tactics are exactly the same as their enemies. Congratulations, AmeriFascist. You've become what you claim to despise and any passing resemblance you have with a human being is merely coincidental.

Posted by: Mike at March 09, 2005 06:31 AM

11 blah blah blah, hey mike you symp, go "reason" with the enemies of america, see how far that peace thing gets you.

brave men and women fight to keep you safe in your cocoon, so bundle up, stay cozzie you pathetic excuse for a human.

I love how words mean nothing to you loser libs, for instance calling me a bigot, umm wheres the bigotry? I dont like communists who actively try to assist in the defeat of americans?

and as for hate, it is an apropriate response to have for those who would kill you or revel in your death.


and last clue for you moron, they are in A WAR ZONE!!!! PEOPLE DIE IN WAR ZONES, DONT WANT TO DIE? DONT BE A COMMIE SYMP HELPING THE TERRORISTS IN A WAR ZONE!

you are the pathetic one, siding with our enemies, the ones who revel in writing stories designed to spread innflammatory lies and propaganda aimed at destroying our very way of life, and aiding in killing americans, shaaaaaaamme on you if your really an american, you traitorous byatch.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 09:48 AM

12 I all most forgot, the one thing I love from you pathetic home grown america haters is when you trot out your im a "real christian" blather, I dont recall saying I was a christian real or otherwise, you assclown. so why make the comparison? you do it becuase it advances your im better and holier than thou routine.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 09:56 AM

13 Before I say these things, it's important to note that I'm a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq and I only feel qualified to speak on these topics because of this experience. Obviously, I lean a bit to the right. But as long as that's obvious, I still think I have something to contribute for the consideration of all.

Regarding Napalm: I submit that the reason nobody could confirm the use of napalm is because the US military hasn't used it for training or combat since Vietnam. Furthermore, it is a widely-acknowledged conviction among Marines that they are in Iraq to fight for the Iraqi people and against the "insurgents/terrorists" that Al Jezeera likes to call "fighters." Marines view these insurgents/fighters as intent upon preventing the Iraqi people from realizing the blessings of liberty. I know, it sounds corny. But what I love about my fellow Marines is that we all share these 'corny' ideologies, even if they are hidden beneath a rugged exterior of tobacco-chewing bravado that is only fully shed when drinking at a bar back in the states in the company of the men with whom they fought.

Look, napalm is an indiscriminate weapon. It's not exactly a smart-bomb. Instead, it maximizes the potential for collateral damage, thereby maximizing the potential for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqis, be they friend or foe. This is chiefly why current military policy declines to employ napalm during force-on-focre conventional warfare, much less military operations in urban terrain like Fallujah.

It would take an officer of very significant rank (read that his name would be known to Congress) for the issuance of an order that napalm be brought out of retirement and used in Fallujah. And, if this very, very hypothetical occurance transpired, you can bet the cries of outrage would be heard first and loudest from the 19-year-old privates on the ground who do our counrty's dirty deeds willingly because they feel in their hearts that they are helping the Iraqi people along the road to liberty.

All this, of course, is based off the assumption that the use of napalm is being sanctioned as military policy, which obviously it is not. But, just because we're not seeing jets fly overhead delivering napalm bombs, doesn't mean that field enginuity hasn't been put to use in creating field-expedient, napalm-like weapons.

If this is the case, that Marines are making home-made napalm-like expolsives and effectively using them in combat, then it just makes me love Marines more. Let's keep this in perspective. Anything they come up with in the field adhoc is going to be a far cry from a 500-pound bomb dropping from the sky and consuming an entire village in a blinding flash of indescriminate fire. Frankly, I'm impressed with the ingenuity of the individual Marine. What does it say about America's often-criticized public school system that an infantry Marine can identify a need for innovation in weaponry and tactics with regard to the building-clearing operations that have claimed so many of his friends, then get his hands on some laundry detergent, then gasoline, and McGyver himself and his squad an impromptu napalm-like grenade that just may save the life of he and his buddies. I've been to combat. I've been involved in all those nasty situations they show on the news. I can tell you flat out that the guy I want on my flank is the guy who can actualize a viable weapon from the meager materials at his disposal in the field. Had I the authority, I'd put a medal on him.

Sidenote: I love my country and show it with more than just rhetoric. When I believe she's right, I show my love by taking personal responsibility for the courage of her convictions in my military capacity as a Marine. When she's wrong I show my love by holding her feet to the fire in my civilian capacity as a journalist. For those of us who truly love our country for the reasons she deserves to be loved and despise her enemies for the reasons they deserve to be dispised, RUMCROOK is an extreme embarrassment. And though one of the reasons that I love America is because she ensures the freedom of a venue in which RUMCROOK can advocate his own narrow world view, I am saddened that my country must also suffer his unique kind of abusive fanatacsim, which I think is counterproductive and obtuse.

Posted by: The Notebook Ninja at March 09, 2005 10:04 AM

14 thanks for the feed back ninja, I will consider what you said. I dont feel it is a narrow world view to think a communist propagandist masquereding as a "journalist" who helped fund the enemies of american forces on the ground with millions of dollars, an enemy.

if its abusive to call a communist a hag, so be it. and if its abusive to respond to abuse with an equal measure of roughness, so be it.

and as for loving your country with more than rhetoric, I salute your service. having served myself, in the army.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 10:34 AM

15 Cool, man. I try to steer clear of ethnocentric view points. The word "terrorist" is the new "commie." If they made Rocky IV today, Stalone would be fighting a Muslim instead of a Russian. That's just how my society does things.

I don't really care if some "wanna be" journalist tries to pass off such obviously false information as fact. Honestly, I don't think her assertions are even plausible enough to accidently contain merit. Plus, I pay my rent by being a journlaist, so I like to think I'm pretty media savvy. But, knowing what I know about the propogandist tendencies of all media sources, I like to temper my understanding of an issue with its portrayal by the other side. This is why I'm always reading Al Jazeera stuff too. They provide an important function to the world, the flip side that illustrates where American media should perhaps be exposed to scrutiny with regard to it's unbiased accuracy. Likewise, resident's of the middle east would benefit from logging on the CNN.com, not to learn "the truth," but to expose themselves to the opoosite side of the spectrum so they can determine where in the middle the truth actually lies.

Divergent opinions are absolutley necessary in keeping the truth out there. In the case of this "so-called" journalist, we're just talking about lowsy reporting. It's absolutley nothing to get worked up about, I think. By all means, counter her claims with verifiable evidence aimed at exposing her for the sensationalist hack she probably is. But name-calling, the exacerbation of muck-raking ... it's all sotrite that it doesn't do justice to the scope of the issue at hand.

Holla' atcher' boy

Posted by: The Notebook Ninja at March 09, 2005 12:29 PM

16 Cool, man. I try to steer clear of ethnocentric view points. The word "terrorist" is the new "commie." If they made Rocky IV today, Stalone would be fighting a Muslim instead of a Russian. That's just how my society does things.

I don't really care if some "wanna be" journalist tries to pass off such obviously false information as fact. Honestly, I don't think her assertions are even plausible enough to accidently contain merit. Plus, I pay my rent by being a journlaist, so I like to think I'm pretty media savvy. But, knowing what I know about the propogandist tendencies of all media sources, I like to temper my understanding of an issue with its portrayal by the other side. This is why I'm always reading Al Jazeera stuff too. They provide an important function to the world, the flip side that illustrates where American media should perhaps be exposed to scrutiny with regard to it's unbiased accuracy. Likewise, resident's of the middle east would benefit from logging on the CNN.com, not to learn "the truth," but to expose themselves to the opoosite side of the spectrum so they can determine where in the middle the truth actually lies.

Divergent opinions are absolutley necessary in keeping the truth out there. In the case of this "so-called" journalist, we're just talking about lowsy reporting. It's absolutley nothing to get worked up about, I think. By all means, counter her claims with verifiable evidence aimed at exposing her for the sensationalist hack she probably is. But name-calling, the exacerbation of muck-raking ... it's all so trite that it doesn't do justice to the scope of the issue at hand.

Holla' atcher' boy

Posted by: The Notebook Ninja at March 09, 2005 12:29 PM

17 You guys are nazi's here.

Posted by: oneofthebrave at March 09, 2005 02:53 PM

18 sigh.....
and we are nazis how?
illuminate us...

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 04:19 PM

19 as far as I know I hold no position nor does anyone else here, that the US should run extermination camps

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 04:22 PM

20 niether has anyone here advocated imposing tyranny over anyone or murdering innocents

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 04:27 PM

21 but plenty of leftists have supported just those things in thier support of saddam,

the nazi rant is now the officially silliest name the the left spits out at anyone.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 04:33 PM

22 when call a self confessed communist a dispicable peice of garbage, this is what makes it the truth.




The Hells of North Korea
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 21, 2003

Grossly unfair. Arrogant. Inflammatory. These were among the adjectives that critics used to describe President Bush’s "axis of evil" moniker for Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. "I think we've got to be very careful with rhetoric of that kind," said Senator Tom Daschle. Jimmy Carter said Bush’s words were "seriously disturbing" American relations with those countries. Madeleine Albright called Bush's comments "a big mistake," while Clinton national security staffer Antony Blinken said they were intended to draw public attention away from "things less comfortable, like the economy and the Enron scandal." Robert Einhorn, who helped negotiate Clinton’s disastrous 1994 deal with Pyongyang, claimed that Bush’s "tough rhetoric" left the North Koreans "unnerved" and bound to react defiantly. A Los Angeles Times piece accused Bush of concocting a "rationale for a grossly expanded military budget." Wake Forest University professor James Dunn said, "When that sort of ultimate certainty [Bush’s assertion that some regimes are evil] comes along, you have the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Puritan hangings."

Criticism from overseas also washed ashore in due time. French foreign minister Hubert Védrine called Bush’s comments "too simplistic." Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to label the three regimes "evil." British foreign secretary Jack Straw saw Bush’s remarks as political whoring of the worst kind, "best understood by the fact that there are mid-term congressional elections coming up in November." The South Korean press was flooded with cries that Bush was "undercutting years of diplomacy" with the Stalin-ist North.

If one believes that Bush was wrong to dub certain regimes "evil" – on the theory that all evil is relative and is differentially defined in different cultures – the joining implication is that the US has no moral authority to dictate which nations should be allowed to develop the great equalizer, nuclear weaponry. This view is passionately espoused by "peace" advocates like Ramsey Clark and members of the group Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism. This past Saturday thousands of such activists staged a rally in Washington, DC. While their most immediate concern involved the possibility of US military action in Iraq, the current tensions with North Korea clearly raise similar political dilemmas. Lampooning the "arrogant" American demand that Iraq and North Korea submit to unfettered weapons inspections, many of the demonstrators portrayed UN weapons inspectors and symbolically demanded access to the White House and the Washington Naval Yard to search for weapons of mass destruction.

It would be fascinating to eavesdrop on a conversation where critics like these might speak to one of the thousands of tortured, long-forgotten political prisoners in Saddam’s Iraq. It would be equally absorbing to hear such critics ask a gentleman named Ahn Myong Chol what he thinks of their notions about good, evil, and moral relativism. Chol spent several years as a guard at a vast North Korean slave labor camp in Haengyong. Encircled by a ten-foot-high electrified barbed-wire fence accompanied by minefields and mantraps, this camp holds some 50,000 inmates who, according to Chol, "provide slave labor for the [nearby] farms and factories [and a coal mine where] many die of exhaustion, their energy sapped by pitifully small rations, or by vicious beatings from guards." South Korean intelligence sources estimate that 210,000 people are imprisoned in 10 such camps around North Korea. According to the Center for the Advancement of North Korean Human Rights, at least 400,000 prisoners have died agonizing deaths in these camps since they were established by the late dictator Kim Il Sung in 1972.

Most of the inmates were imprisoned for somehow offending either Sung or his son, the current president Kim Jong Il. Their offenses may have been as trivial as tearing up a newspaper photo of one of these tyrants, uttering a negative comment about the Commun-ist Party, or listening to a foreign radio broadcast. Once incarcerated, the prisoners are generally never seen or heard from again outside the camps. Moreover, Kim’s policy demands that three generations of every prisoner’s family should be wiped out to "cleanse" his social-ist haven. Thus if a man is pronounced guilty of one of the aforementioned "crimes," his parents and children are sent to the labor camp along with him – for the sole purpose of slow, tortured extermination.

After speaking with Mr. Chol, perhaps the "peace" advocates who flocked to Washington might enjoy a chat with Soon Ok Lee, a former prisoner who told a US Senate committee of grisly biological and chemical weapons experiments that are regularly performed on the North Korean inmates; of gruesome tortures performed with electricity and water; of guards who use prisoners as targets when practicing their martial arts maneuvers; of frequent public executions of "anti-party elements"; and of people burned to death for believing in Christianity.

Ms. Lee describes how the unborn babies of female prisoners are often killed by "inserting salts and salt liquids into the wombs." She tells of pregnant women forced to deliver their babies "on the cement floor without blankets [while] the prison doctor kick[ed] the . . . women with his boots. When a baby was born, the doctor shouted, ‘Kill it quickly. How can a criminal expect to have a baby? Kill it.’ The women covered their faces with their hands and wept. . . . The prisoner-nurses . . . squeezed the babies’ necks to kill them."

Lee further explains how, for thirteen years in a labor camp, she was literally robbed of her humanity, relentlessly tortured into confessing to a crime (embezzlement) she did not commit. The flesh on her face was torn from her lip halfway to her ear. "They frequently poured cold water on my body and left me outside in freezing winter nights," she says. "Once I was left on the floor unconscious for many hours and woke up to find worms in my wounds. . . . I was kicked for every movement from one location to another. I was no longer a human but a beast."

read it all, if you can stand to see what the results are of communists being in charge...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5651

Posted by: rumcrook at March 09, 2005 11:30 PM

23 You're too shrewd for us, rumcrook. You've managed to accurately describe our plans after us liberals take over. Rats, foiled again.

In case you didn't understand The Notebook Ninja's posts very well, let me rephrase it in small words for you: "Conservatives are ashamed by you. Be quiet around the adults."

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 12:00 PM

24 SPQR '"concerned nonamerican", evidently you are not watching the news. The Middle East is learning something you never figured that they would'

actually i do watch the news, and read it, and listen to it... Outside of the USA one has a diverse range of news on offer. From the many months I've spent in America I was appalled by the range and quality of the news. International news seemed to comprise of cute stories about Hawaii. Your media is famously narrow minded. Americans tend not to realise this because, strangely enough, their media doesn't tell them. Sound like the media of North Korea and other 'commie' regimes.


" like non american, who thinks we acted against terror sponsor regimes in afghanistan and iraq in a vacuum, 911 never happened, nor the embassy bombings or the cole, or the attempt to bring down the trade towers in 93. no, inhis pathetic world view we arent fighting a fight started by an evil enemy we just decided to fight back for kicks and giggles becuase were bullies."

Sure, you were attacked. You fought back. You didn't get the bad guy you were looking for. And now 'regime change' has become your umbrella excuse for interfering in other people business. Wouldn't it be just as wise to stay the hell away from the trouble, close ranks, protect your own land. Do you think Americans give a damn about the politics of the Arab nations. I'd be amazed if your average American graduate could point out Lebanon on a map of the world. If you closed ranks, defended your borders, I think you'd ultimately be left alone. But no, your country is off on a ridiculous crusade delivering democracy to countries don't need Americas 'help' thank you very much. So when you're attacked on you own soil, again, you will only have yourselves to blame.

Posted by: concerned non American at March 10, 2005 02:10 PM

25 ooo dr. dr. asshat, you got me on the ropes with that. if you were to read any of what I posted which is probably to much to expect from a troll, youd notice the article refers to communists. as for my previous statement about liberals in general its not my fault if it stings that libs are allways siding with the social-ist/commie tryannies.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 10, 2005 03:37 PM

26 concerned, thier are people who advocate the isolationist model, and make a case for it. ultimately I think it is a flawed model, if it doesnt include taking the fight to the enemy, a good defense is having a good offense. I do think our borders need to be tightened, and I would end foriegn aid to most countries.

but our fight in afghanistan has reaped huge rewards in the fight against islamoterrorism, and the end results of iraq seem to now be leaning that way also.

your entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: rumcrook at March 10, 2005 03:44 PM

27 "Concerned", your "policy" suggestion is pretty silly. September 11th demonstrated that the forces of islamic extremism could not be ignored because their actions were not confined to the Middle East.

Posted by: SPQR at March 10, 2005 05:55 PM

28 SPQR, America wasn't an innocent bystander when it was attacked. It's been sticking its fingers into other nations business for generations. Of course Sept 11 was at the hands of Islamist extremists. But sadly your average American doesn't realise or care that the REST OF THE WORLD is getting pretty fed up with AMERICAN extremism. Quit chasing a noun around the globe. You're pissing so many people off, and for what. At what point will the war on terrorism be over? Bush might triumphantly proclaim victory at some point, but the enemies of America aren't wearing uniforms. I really hope America has the maturity to rethink its plans. I doubt they will.

Posted by: concerned non American at March 10, 2005 06:42 PM

29 Concerned non American: Why do you assholes never tell which wonderful country you are from? Ashamed?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 02:06 AM

30 rumcrook, my apologies. I actually have read everything you post, which, after some deciphering of your crummy writing, seems to indicate that your intelligence is too low to distinguish between opposition to the war and sympathizing with terrorists and dictators. So, when you post an article like that, I'm going to assume you're attacking my side along with whoever else you're shooting at.

It doesn't help that you led off with this: when call a self confessed communist a dispicable peice of garbage, this is what makes it the truth.

?????????

Try again, but this time in English, please.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 11, 2005 07:41 AM

31 Concerned non American: That's right we are the school yard bully. Wanna fight? Still too cowardly to tell where you are from. Must be a real shit place. I'm American and proud of it. Anyone so ashamed of their country as to hide it is lower than snake shit. Be proud of your country little dog.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 08:03 PM

32 grey rooster: I am from the south Pacific. That's an ocean just to the left of your country. Hawaii is in it. Iraq is nowhere near it. Lebanon is nowhere near it. China is near it. What're you going to do about them eh? Any bright ideas. They're much bigger than you. Don't piss off the Chinese now, or you'll get hurt. Do you know where China is? It's a long way away, but they've got big bad weapons too. Bush aint so demanding of the Chinese like he is of tiny Arab nations...

Posted by: concerned non American at March 14, 2005 04:58 PM

33 Well, that's so charming.

It's fascinating to read this list and see what America has become. A land of homicidal dickwads and homoerotic marines. I'm sure you'll all be happy together.

As for Iraq, take away the pretty language and the right wing hysteria, and here's the bottom line. You fought a war for lies, wmd's and al quaeda connections were lies. You are there to loot the country, that's pretty undeniable by now. And last, but not least, you are losing.
When you leave Iraq, it will be without honour or dignity, and the Iraqi's will spit on the ground you walk on.

America used to be a great country. America used to the the greatest country. Now? Look at you. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You've whored out everything that made you great, you've sold out, sold off, bent your knee. You've become a land of cowards and fanatics, malice drips from your every utterance.

Look at you now. You're working on trillion dollar trade deficits, and trillion dollar budget deficits. You no longer make anything that anyone wants to buy, your remaining industries are subsidized, your only exports are jobs. You can't even feed your poor or fix your roads, but you need tax cuts for your rich, your mentally ill wander the streets, your old people starve paying to heat their homes, you've become a nation that devours its children.

You've taken to calling yourself an Empire, something the old America would have denounced. And yet, even as you dream of ruling the world, you are rotting from within. History is passing you by.

You used to be great. But now you've thrown it away. I find that tragic.

Goodbye, America

Posted by: Canadian at March 18, 2005 10:45 PM

34 When it has to be destroyed overnight....call the MARINES...


Sounds like they are doing their job and doing it well. Iragi insurgents like the Japanese, Vietnamese and etc before them will pay a heavy price extracted by the U.S. Marine Corps.

You don't have to agree with the politics, but you have a hard time disagreeing....as a fighting force the MARINES are hard to match. Nobody really wants to take on the Marines!! It ain't healthy.

Semper Fi

Posted by: Marine DAD at March 23, 2005 04:57 PM

35 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" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus 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.

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.

Posted by: Chase at April 03, 2005 05:55 PM

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

Posted by: chase at April 03, 2005 05:57 PM

37 How would you guys explain the pictures of people burnt to the bones - with clothes intact?
By stating that "legal" weapons were used, rule-book in hand?

Sorry guys but firing those kinds of weapons in populated areas might be legal in a litteral sense, but it is worse than the musterdgas used in woI - since that was used on troops.

I hope that america's leadership will change and will stop these tactics. Some of u guys may be able to believe the bush propaganda, but the rest of the world does.

In the end, "semper fi" wich is i believe "eternal loyalty" wont help america, because marines will be up against the world if your government continues its empire ways.

From a hopeful european

make sure you guys dont ever have to say "ich habe es nicht gewusst"

And i would like to stress that NO EUROPEAN IS ANTI-AMERICAN. We dislike the policies, not the people.

Ps: dont rip me for my english, its my third language and i have lots to learn.

Posted by: a hopeful european at November 08, 2005 07:50 PM

38 buy viagra buy viagra order viagra cheap viagra viagra online generic viagra buy viagra online order viagra online discount viagra
http://www.oiweb.com/discus/messages/3/Buy-Viagra-695.html
buy viagra
buy viagra
order viagra
cheap viagra
viagra online
generic viagra
buy viagra online
order viagra online
discount viagra

Posted by: buy viagra at April 11, 2007 12:09 AM

39 replica handbags replica designer handbags designer replica handbags replica coach handbags wholesale replica handbags replica handbag replica louis vuitton handbags coach replica handbags replica chanel handbags
http://www.templebar.ie/discus/messages/6/Replica-handbags-598.html
replica handbags
replica designer handbags
designer replica handbags
replica coach handbags
wholesale replica handbags
replica handbag
replica louis vuitton handbags
coach replica handbags
replica chanel handbags

Posted by: replica handbags at April 11, 2007 02:10 PM

40 Replica watches, replica rolex watches, replica watch, replica rolex, rolex replica
http://dbrg.cs.mnsu.edu/CSRG/DataWarehousing/_reqdis/00000e8d.htm
replica watches
replica rolex watches
replica watch
replica rolex
rolex replica

Posted by: Replica watches at April 11, 2007 06:04 PM






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.006 seconds, 48 records returned.
Page size 50 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.