Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Obama's troops wouldn't use white phosphorus, would they? It's such a Nazi type of weapon.


In other news, under the headline, No end to air strikes in Afghanistan is an even scarier headline that reads, Rights group claims US uses phosphorus in air strikes, which suggests that Obama's Afghan adventure might get just as dirty as Bush's Mesopotamian one.

I thought that Saint Barrack was going to fight for the little brown man, not set him alight with weapons banned by the Geneva Treaty. Two of the last paragraphs read,
“We cannot be 100 percent sure what type of chemical it was and we do not have the equipment here to find out. One of the women who came here told us that 22 members of her family were totally burned. She said a bomb distributed white powder that caught fire and then set people’s clothes alight,” Jalali said.

US forces in Afghanistan denied they had used the chemical, and have also said claims that up to 147 civilians were killed were grossly exaggerated.
The claims were indeed blown grossly out of proportion - I hear it was more like a hundred and thirty nine and a couple of infants and they were all Kalashnikov-carrying Taliban freedom-haters. Despite the bleating in the liberal press there isn't a civilian left in Afghanistan, if there even were any there to begin with.

The very last paragraph reads,
Both sides have made wildly different claims, with Taliban spokesmen seeking to exploit popular fury.
Yes, and the Americans seeking to incite said popular fury - it's how they roll...


This image and story from Daylife were posted a month ago,


NOW ZAD, AFGHANISTAN - APRIL 03: U.S. Marine Sgt. Monica Hardin loads a 120mm white phosphorus mortar while firing towards a Taliban position on April 3, 2009 in Now Zad in Helmand province, Afghanistan. U.S. Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment fired mortars and staged a ground assault on a section of the Taliban front line as part of the major strike. American air power dropped more than ten tons of explosives on dug-in Taliban fighting positions, according to the military. The U.S. operation involved Air Force, Marine, Navy and Army aviation and was coordinated as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The military says the civilian population of Now Zad fled in 2007, leaving the city a battleground between U.S. forces and entrenched Taliban fighters. Hardin is from Nashville, Tenn.

No mention of white phosphorus being a banned weapon, but there is an explanation about the civilians having fled two years ago. It's not just illegal to use these on civilians, it's wrong. It's wrong to use this kind of weapon on anyone. Many of them say they are Christians, but what would Jesus say about this kind of behavior?

3 comments:

BigEll said...

Do you have any other pictures of a 120mm white phosphorous mortar? I looked on google (1-6 pages) and this was the only picture I found. The other drawings and examples look different. The copy is also a little disingenuous in that the excerpt has no sources and comes originally from Getty Images where anybody can upload a picture and write commentary on it. They did do a nice job making in look like a wire report. It was just picked up by Daylife which is a similar service that streamlines news for blogs and webpages. Again no sources needed.

I am not saying that the US Military didn't do it.
Not saying that Barrack doesn't want to kill brownies. Not sure if Afghanistan is 'Barack's'war yet, as you claim. I do know that it is definitely Chretien's. They show his victims every week on HNIC.

Kell's Blurbs said...

There is nothing but Taliban left in Now Zad...my son is there..he's a Marine....there is nothing good there at all...bring on the white phosphorous....Semper Fi

Sean Reilly said...

First of all, I am very sorry that your son has been sent off to war. If my son were sent away to Afghanistan I don't think I could bear it. I would be calling for severed heads, but they would be the heads of my local representatives and their pet lobbyists.

And secondly, Kell, yes, let's pour burning chemicals on people who don't agree with our views. And let's do it a long way away so we don't have to see any of it. That's an excellent idea. And let's pour those (banned by the Geneva Treaty for use on humans) chemicals on their no-good wives and sons and daughters and their grandmothers too. They should have known better than to be born near those Taliban types.

If they had just had the common decency to be born in the USA, there would probably be no need to send 72,000 US troops 10 000km (6000 miles) to cook them down with weapons the civilized world has banned for use on humans.

And then let's go cut off their ears for trophies and fill their dead, charred orifices with our righteous manhood.

And let's hope that no one ever decides that we aren't human enough to be treated like people.

You see we won't have much of a defense.

Are you really so indoctrinated as to think that Afghan mothers don't love their children just as much as we love ours?

Semper fidelis. Yes, always faithful, but to what?