BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 11:45 AM

"and we just don't care."
That's the problem Keith - some of us do care and we want this to stop, so don't come your crocodile tears with us again - it was disgusting enough last time.
British soldiers died in Iraq and are now dying in Afghanistan.
Adventures like this are going to make matters worse.
The only hope we have is by winning some hearts and minds in the Arab world; not going to happen by dropping bombs on civilians, invading sovereign states and putting civilian lives at risk, or by training crack troops and sending them back to Pearl Square to slaughter demonstrators demanding reforms.
Bin Laden could have been taken with the co-operation of the Pakistani Government (if a crack Seal team couldn't manage to overcome him and his four male companions perhaps they should have a closer look at their training methods), tried and sentenced in full public view to the satisfaction of all rather than being shot full in the face while fleeing (never managed to work that one out - was he running backwards?).
Once again - you and your funny friend (who appears to have disappeared - maybe to get a book on chemical weapons out of the library) are the only ones here supporting terrorist behaviour.
Don't suppose we're going to get a retraction of your inane descripion of phosphorus bombs, are we, or of your mate's crass downgrading of napalm and Agent Orange?
Tought not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 09:01 AM

Still, as Jim says, it was not worth doing because he could be replaced.

Pity that lesson is lost on Al Q.
They go to great, even suicidal, lengths to kill our soldiers, commuters and air travellers, and we just don't care.
We just replace them.

They should listen to our Jim.

(One likely replacement for OBL just killed by a drone in Pakistan)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 08:22 AM

You've got that right Lighter, that should put paid to their uninformed bleating about violation of sovereignty.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 08:10 AM

There's the way the world works, and then there's the way ideologues are sure it works.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 07:19 AM

Pakistan"s officials secretly support covert US military action, in their country, latest leaked diplomatic cables reveal.

"Zardari noted that he would be willing to 'take the political heat' of a cross-border raid if a really important high value target was captured".

Al Jazeera

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 07:18 AM

"Oh Jim a shit load of things can be CLAIMED "
It can indeed Terrorist - thanks for the accomanying example from your own fair hand.
Despite your claims, the effects of white phosphorus on human beings is indesputable and as far as I'm concerned, govenments who use it on civilians are desrving of the description "terrorist", and those who support them "terrorist sympathysers".
If you have access to the article you will see the photograph clearly showing the stuff showering down on the village ("in order to flush our insurgents", I think the caption reads).
The use of phosphorus in Iraq (and in Gaza)is beyond question - the only controversy being whether its use on built-up areas contravenes international law (which doesn't make it any less of an atrocity as far as I'm concerned).
You seem to have gone silent on naplam and Agent Orange?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM

""I thought your objection was that K didn't, he used other people's;""

That is precisely the point Mike.

He nails his colours to the mast, and when taken to task, says "They're not mine! I borrowed them from him over there."

Politicians call it "plausible deniability", because it enables them to say exactly what they think without ever having to take the responsibility.

Enter Keith!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 06:49 AM

"According to the Sunday Times article (including photograph of same "around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan."

White Phosphorus munitions are used to mark targets - True? And the article did say that the US troops were in contact with insurgents so in this instance there was no question about civilians being targeted with WP by US Forces

"It has been claimed that they used it against civilans in Iraq - why not; they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing."

Oh Jim a shit load of things can be CLAIMED but that does not necessarily meant that things actually happened does it.

And from quoting those two instances (one where no civilians were targeted and the other where no substantive proof exists) you have the bloody nerve to level the accusation that "they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing"

But we both know organisations that did deliberatley target civilians, their whole campaign was based on that very tactic, and who, if they could have got hold of WP munitions they would have used it without a second thought.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 05:32 AM

BTW ~ I did once play Ugly Sister in our village pantomime. Relevant? Not sure.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 05:30 AM

Jim ~~ do you know I have never quite understood what it means to 'nail one's colours to the mast'; I thought your objection was that K didn't, he used other people's; but as I say it has always struck me as one of those phrases... Only time it has appealed to me was in a Cambridge Footlights review that I reviewed many years ago [1968, I think it was], with the late Jonathan James-Moore doing a send-up of nostalgia for the great days of Empire: "Nail the colours to the mast," he carolled in a red coat; "the wogs have pinched the string." Despite the possible objections to the ironic non-PC, I still smile at that.

"Fairy godmother" is it? Well, now, I shall have to cogitate on the implications of that one. But I can say right off that it is a matter of some indifference to me as to who, or whether anybody, goes to the ball.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 04:19 AM

" his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians"

This is another lie against me by Jim.
Why can you not just challenge what I actually say, and have an honest debate Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 02:43 AM

"they are horrible, exploitative programmes IMO"
Still find the 'airhead' reference very offensive Mike, even moreso having been told that it is a reference to Eric Morely's annual meat market.
But if all her were to be honest, if was an attempt on K's part to steer the argument away from the awkward bits and make it something it is not.
I find nothing risable about the desire for world peace, something I would have thought we would all wish for - even Keith, for all his sneers (oh - and the "airheads and their beauty pagents" - nasty, debasing little phrase, whatever it was referring to).
This is not what this argument is about; it's about which particular brand of terrorism we are prepared to oppose and which (in Keith's case) we are prepared to ignore or excuse, simple as that - personally, I can't see the difference; if you use terrorist tactics then you can expect to be labelled a terrorist.
"And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again"
And btw;
"And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again"
Didn't think I had - have only brought in his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians, which I believe is relevant to what is being discussed here.
Keith has done a wonderful job of nailing his own colours to the mast - he always does (as his fairy godmother, surely you have noticed that).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:15 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/articles/media-and-appearances/36009-david-icke-problem-reaction-solution

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:35 PM

Just did a Google search for "Libya 'chemical weapons' NATO June 2011."

Found nothing about NATO use, just NATO concerns about G's stockpile.

But I gave up looking after the first two pages. (I also checked Al Jazeera.) Anyone care to try harder?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:24 PM

==Sorry Mike - I did miss the point; not part of my refgular viewing I'm afraid; have I missed much?===

You have missed zilch, Jim; they are horrible, exploitative programmes IMO ~~ & that of my late first wife Valerie, with whom I sometimes had to watch them many years ago when she had senior editorial posts on a couple of women's magazines. I haven't watched one since: but do recall that the parroted standard reply of "world peace" when the girls were interviewed about their ambitions & wishes as part of the 'personality' section of the competitions became something of a standing joke ~ the one to which Keith was referring.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 03:57 PM

"The continued practice of using chemical weapons on civilians makes it clear that while the weapons may have changed, the practice of killing civilians has not"

USA, planet Earth?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 03:33 PM

"Just a measure of the desperation of some to run down USA."
The continued practice of using chemical weapons on civilians makes it clear that while the weapons may have changed, the practice of killing civilians has not - that is why the behaviour of the US is still an issue.
The use of imprisonment without trial in intolerable, inhuman conditions, the use of torture and the practice of shipping out 'suspects' to places where extreme torture will be used is further evidence that the US is sinking even deeper into being a terrorist state.
This is what you are supporting - openly by your defence of the act of bombing civilians and tacitly by your continued silence on the US's record on human rights.
Far from being a safer place, bin Laden's place as spitirual leader was re-filled within a week, with a further 3 candidates waiting in the wings should their services be called upon.
One of the most positive changes to have taken place recently in the Arab world has been the 'Arab Spring', the demands for democracy which has drawn many hundreds of thousands out on to the streets of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria... All this has been put at risk by the cowboy behaviour of the US, the contempt shown by them for the sovereignty of Pakistan and the double standards being applied towards the calls for reforms in these countries.
Some of the most repressive opposition to the demands for change has come from the Bahrain regime (30-odd protesters killed, 60-odd injured, and two sentenced sentenced to death for their part in the protests), yet far from eliciting one word of condemnation by either Britain or America, some of the crack troops that put down the protests so viciously were still being trained by the British Army at Sandhurst long after the protests had begun.   
Far from our gaining much needed support in the Arab countries, it is facts like these that will drive the people who are now demanding reforms right into the arms of the Muslim extremists.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 11:11 AM

Yes, No, No.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 11:03 AM

I think I have made my opinions clear.
The operation was justifiable.
The world is a better place because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM

Let's not get tangled up in political ideologies.

The fact is that G could have saved many lives by resigning weeks and weeks ago. He chose not to. He could save an unknown number of lives today by resigning now. He chooses not to.

If NATO ends its campaign, G's resistance will prove to his peers that no international alliance has the staying power to call any ruthless dictator to account. As soon as the shooting stops, the mass executions begin.

Anyone who wants to lump G and NATO togther as equivalent and indistinguishable "mass murderers" can go right ahead.

The choice of terminology does not change the fact that G brought on the violence through decades of arbitrary power and repression, G could and should have ended the situation by resigning before the intervention, G can end the killing now, and the ethical burden is squarely upon G to do so. Immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:55 AM

No need Keith. As far as I'm concerned, your response has confirmed what I felt.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:41 AM

Agent Orange was nearly half a century ago in a Cold War surrogate conflict.
It could not be less relevant to this thread.
Just a measure of the desperation of some to run down USA.

Start a thread on the Vietnam war and I will tell you what I think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:35 AM

"who dutifully reply "World peace""
Sorry Mike - I did miss the point; not part of my refgular viewing I'm afraid; have I missed much?
"Whom should he quote in support of his arguments "
He can quote whoever he wishes as long as he doesn't opt out with his regular "don't blame the messenger" escape clause whenever the going gets tough.
As guest Jon has pointed out, if the 'experts' he is putting forward reflect his own views he should have the courage and honesty to say so and be prepared to defend them rather than hide behind them, as he constatly does.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:46 AM

Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone?

I think the question is over whether or not he has stated his personal opinion. The way I'm reading it does confirm his personal outlook and he is saying for example:

That Agent Orange may have caused 500,000 birth defects and countless other civilian deaths and injuries is completely irrelevant.

As the "rule book" classifies it as a herbicide (or may otherwise consider its use legal), its use is perfectly OK.

It's an outlook that I find very disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:47 AM

Jim ~~ You miss the point of Keith's 'airhead' comment: are you not constantly amused by all the Miss World & Miss Universe contestants, asked what they most wish for, who dutifully reply "World peace" as if they thought this would make some sort of original appeal to the judges?

Or do you never ever ever watch such programmes?

Once again I have to say I think Keith is getting a raw deal on this thread. Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone?

And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again ~~ we've been there, most unproductively, before, haven't we...?

~M~

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:26 AM

"you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant,"
And btw - I very much enjoyed your wondfully sexist turn of phrase - I do hope some of our women contributors are looking in
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM

"Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped"
Yes they do Keith, and not defended, as you and your atrocity-defending buddies are doing here and alsewhere.
I think you have had your responses to your statement, now let's hear what you think, not the experts you have now taken to hiding behind on an increasinly regular basis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM

Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped

By bigger mass murdering monsters?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:48 AM

""It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC.
If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC.""

OK Keith, once again we see you expressing an opinion as to the expendability of civilian lives, and when challenged, once again we have you running away to hide behind some expert or inapplicable legal precept.

The LOAC was formulated to prevent the worst atrocities in a situation of armed conflict between two sovereign nations, involving the(trained and uniformed)armies of those nations.

Which nation is the US at war with?.........Pakistan?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM

"Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped"

Well, I think we can all agree on that.

What is the current Iraqi body count?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:18 AM

Jim, you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant, whose ambition is world peace.
You think that war is a bad thing, and imagine there is a debate about that.
You don't approve of people getting killed and imagine there is an alternative opinion.

Grow up.
Universal peace and love is not going to break out any time soon.
Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped, and real people have to make real decisions about acceptable costs to achieve an aim that you say you support.

So, don't stand back wringing your hands and imagining you are the only one who cares.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 02:34 AM

"take it up with ICRC."
No I will not.
These debates are about what we think, not about a bunch of laws supposedly setting out the 'ethical' or 'acceptable' way of killing people.
Nobody gives a rat's ass what we think, but it doesn't stop us having opinions about what is done to us, or in our name, yet once again you scurry behind a set of rules or the opinions of 'experts' to avoid having to defend your reactionary and inhuman views.
To me, killing civilians is wrong, and is, in these cases, avoidable, and should be opposed - you appear to see nothing wrong with it - defend your own views and stop hiding behind the behaviour and 'expertise' of others.
You and your funny friend have consistently defended the use of phosphorus weapons on civilians by suggesting that it is harmless - you have an analysis of this obscene stuff above - show us where it is wrong.
Now your strange friend has attempted to present napalm and Agent Orange, as used indisriminately on Third World peasants, as acceptable by distorting its effects. Your own views suport him with your; "I do not accept that USA or Israel do."
What kind of people are you to attempt to defend these acts?
Piss or get off the pot.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM

"To you maybe"
NO JIM!
How can you not still get it?

It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC.
If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:52 PM

"Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel."
No - I'm sorry Mike.
I certainly overstated my comparison with Belsen, which was, of course, an extermination camp.
However, I see no problem with describing Guantanamo as a concentration camp holding illegally held 'suspects', uncharged and untried, in intollerably inhuman conditions.
As for Lidice; following the assassination of Heydrich the village of Lidice was raided; 198 women and 98 children were rounded up and sent to Ravensbruch; 137 men were executed.
On the other hand, somewhere between 347 and 504 men, women and children were massaced by US troops - the punishment for which was, as Guest No 6 acurately describes, a travesty of justice.
"By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented."
As we have no idea which atrocities he was planning (his role has been more or less universally acknowleged as spiritually inspirational rather than operational), we'll never know how many lives, if any, were saved by his being assassinated.
However, we do know that at least half a dozen revenge attacks, minimally reported, have taken place since his death, including a fairly major one in Pakistan - an odd way of saving lives, don't you think?
Not sure of your point about 'The Law of Armed Combat', though it does serve to illustrate the fact that the US appears to regard it as not applying to them.
If nothing else, this turn of discussion does appear to have put to one side your earlier bullshit claim that you don't regard civilian hostages as 'expendable' = "The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate."
To you maybe (that would be 8 women, 13 children and 4 or 5 men in order to make sure that 1 man didn't escape - are you sure you know the meaning of the word 'proportionate?). To the civilised among us it would have been an act of cold-blooded murder in order to ascertain that their quarry didn't escape; even the US authorities realised this in the planning of the raid and took it into consideration.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

"who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on"

No, there are absolutes.
We have the Law Of Armed Conflict.
Some weapons are proscribed.
Civilians must not be targeted.
Civilian casualties must be avoided, or at least minimised.

By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented.
The LOAC would require that civilian casualties incurred in the action be proportionate to the importance of the target.

The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate.
You may disagree Jim, but LOAC is the fruit of years of debate by the greatest minds, and has been the greatest humanitarian achievement of the 20th Century.

No doubt you could come up with something better, but this is what we have

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:09 PM

In any war, who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on. Any leader anywhere can sell the idea that what they do is for the good. Everyone says they hate war but yet history proves that man is a violent species and always will be sadly. I submit that anyone who has been in battle, will fight and die for the cause they sworn to uphold. And anyone that has ever been in battle knows that war is all about monstrous deeds and unspeakable acts of violence with casualties to the innocent everywhere. No side walk away good when doing acts of violence to another. It is not possible. It is what it is. Now I won't shed a tear for the guy, nor should anyone else. I just don't celebrate it and accept it as part of war. And like everything else in war, nothing good ever results until people finally stop. All sides. But humans being what they are, we will continue the insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM

"My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible."
Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out.===

Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel.

I think it was Hegel, OR ONE OF THOSE TEUTONIC LOT ANYHOW, WHO WROTE SOMEWHERE WHAT HAS ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME AN ATOM OF SENSE IN ALL THAT IMPENETRABLE *METaphysical jungle, that there comes a point where a quantative difference transmutes into a qualitative difference. This seems to me an instance; ML & Guant were horrible to be sure; but surely not in the same discursive realm of evil as the other two?

~M~

*[bugger these cap locks that will FIGHT me: don't you just hate it when inanimate objects will just bloody FIGHT you!]

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:32 PM

A couple of quick scoops from Wiki - you might also like to try Googling 'Fallujah' while you're looking for ways to excuse US behaviour regarding civilian.
Jim Carroll.

White phosphorus (WP) is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary[1] munitions. As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death. It has been extensively used as a weapon since World War II. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP," and the slang terms "Whiskey P.," "Willy," "Willie Pete, and "Peter" (derived from the phonetic alphabet in use during World War I) are still sometimes used by infantry and artillery servicemen.
In addition to its offensive capabilities, white phosphorus is also a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke-producing white phosphorus munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smoke screens to mask movement, position or the origin of fire from the enemy.

Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1]
A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, an extremely toxic dioxin compound. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (200 L) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[2]During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand.[3] The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[4][5]
The US began to target food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue. In 1965, 42 percent of all herbicide spraying was dedicated to food crops.[5] Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in South Vietnam, as peasants escaped the destruction and famine in the countryside by fleeing to the U.S.-dominated cities. The urban population in South Vietnam more than tripled: from 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums, while many South Vietnamese elites and U.S. personnel lived in luxury.[6]
Air Force records show that at least 6,542 spraying missions took place over the course of Operation Ranch Hand.[7] By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, which were often applied at rates that were 13 times as high as the legal USDA limit.[8] In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares of agricultural land were ultimately destroyed.[9] In some areas TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered "safe" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[10][11] Overall, more than 20% of South Vietnam's forests were sprayed at least once over a nine year period.[5]

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:11 PM

"I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities.""
That's what it looks like from where I'm standing, otherwise, what did you mean by;
"If only wars never needed to be fought Jim."
"You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.)"
I would say the daily use of napalm (harmless as can of petrol it would appear, if 'Terrorist' is to be believed) on non-combatants was clearly a continual atrocity - including hospitals and schools.
The shipping of uncharged suspects to countries where they will be tortured is a continual atrocity.
The bankrolling of monsters like Marshall Ky, Batista, Duvalier, Pinochet, the Contras - all atrocities, albeit by proxy.
"My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible."
Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out.   
"US has targeted civilians with WP where?"
According to the Sunday Times article (including photograph of same "around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan."
It has been claimed that they used it against civilans in Iraq - why not; they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing.
The Israelis used it fairly extensively against the Palestinians in their little tete-a-tete
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 12:38 PM

Napalm a chemical?? Its bloody glorified petroleum with a gelling agent FFS - you were right you do run your van on it.

Agent Orange is a defoliant?? Weed-Killer in other words

Neither are "Chemical" weapons, that description is normally reserved for Chemical Warfare Agents such as VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, etc.

US has targeted civilians with WP where?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:59 AM

Lt. Calley was initially sentence to life imprisonment ... the day after the sentence President Richard Nixon ordered he serve time not at Leavenworth prison but at a comfy house arrest .... in all Calley served 3 years of house arrest. Others should have been charged along with Calley, such as his superior ... Captain Earnest Medina ... but these individuals got away scott free.

The whole thing awas travesty of justice.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM

Lt. Calley was prosecuted for My Lai by his own side.

So were the Abu Ghreib idiots and the murderers in other cases.

There was a little thing about Breaker Morant a while back too.

(Despite the glib movie, he was guilty as charged.)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:21 AM

"The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo"--

Don't know who wrote this -- came across the concept first & purposely avoided looking to see. I am not involved in this argument except for the Latin tag above which is all I have to contribute ~~


except to comment that the coupling of My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:19 AM

Volenti non fit injuria

Hardly applies to non combat civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM

Volenti non fit injuria

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM

Keith, prosecution can only be carried out by the 'winners' - winners are hardly likley to prosecte themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:50 AM

I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities."
There are accepted rules of warfare.
If they are breached, prosecution is possible.
You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.)
War is always horrific.
That is the nature of it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:15 AM

"If only wars never needed to be fought Jim."
Giving war as an excuse for atrocities is as old as war itself.
The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo is little more than a matter of degree, and which side of the fence you happen to sit on of course.
"I do not accept that USA or Israel do."
'Course you don't Keith - we invented napalm, Agent Orange and phosphorous, and the effect they have on human beings because we don't like the Yanks or the Israelis - they were really only dropping food parcels!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:08 AM

"I do not accept that USA or Israel do."


Really??

No, really?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 07:52 AM

If only wars never needed to be fought Jim.
Given that they do, all weapons of war are intended to cause violent death, and should never be used indiscriminately.
OBL and his followers did and do use them indiscriminately.
I do not accept that USA or Israel do.