Comments on: American military ADMITS it used chemical weapons!

By: vicky

vicky — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:47:57 +0000

you got a lot of information!!!!!!!!!!

By: advicefromgod.com » Blog Archive » What Am I to Believe About White Phosphorus?

Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:32:11 +0000

[...] IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m all confused about these news reports IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m hearing about the use of white phosphorus by American soldiers as a weapon in the seige of the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Bush Administration officials admit that the attacks using white phosphorus as a weapon, and not just as a device for illumination, did take place, but they say that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s okay, because white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. [...]

By: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » Blog Archive » Reuters Covers White Phosphorus Backwards

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:45:18 +0000

[...] The main story is not that the Bush Administration is defending its use of white phosphorus as a weapon against the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The main story is that the Bush Administration authorized the use of explosives containing white phosphorus as a weapon against a city in which the Bush Administration knew that there were large numbers of civilians remaining in their homes. [...]

By: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » Blog Archive » More to come on phosphorus story? Maybe not!

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:17:14 +0000

[...] Earlier this morning, I wrote that more was to come on the story of the admitted American use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon against the Iraqi city of Fallujah. [...]

By: Advice from God » Blog Archive » What Am I to Believe About White Phosphorus?

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:00:52 +0000

[...] I’m all confused about these news reports I’m hearing about the use of white phosphorus by American soldiers as a weapon in the seige of the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Bush Administration officials admit that the attacks using white phosphorus as a weapon, and not just as a device for illumination, did take place, but they say that it’s okay, because white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. [...]

By: poetsforkerry.com » Blog Archive » Burning Bones

poetsforkerry.com » Blog Archive » Burning Bones — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:20:47 +0000

[...] In a desert city we found a uniform intact but a skeleton inside with ashes blowing out the sleeves. They call it conventional. Had we elected to walk another way, we might have been able to say that this ghoul was somebody else’s problem. That they told us white phosphorus was used only for illumination. [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:24:57 +0000

We do not torture. We do not use unconventional weapons (unless we have to). It gets more and more disgusting as we go: Abu Graib, chemical weapons, secret prisons, it just goes on and on. I hope the American electorate has had enough of the lies from the chicken hawks and votes them out of office as a result.

By: Junga

Junga — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:06:16 +0000

Oh, I can just imagine the Republican excuses for this one. “It’s not really a classic chemical weapon,” they’ll say. “It’s a conventional weapon,” they’ll claim.

Conventional my ass. Conventional weapons don’t burn people down to the bone through chemical means!