Here, a video in which a Lebanese Doctor tells CNN International that Israel is dropping phospherous weapons on Lebanon, and that these chemical WMD's are harming numerous civilians. White phospherous, or Willie Pete munitions, can be used as the most effective smoke-screen in small amounts, but large doses equate to what the U.N. classifies as "illegal chemical warfare". I told you that to tell you this...
Here, an Italian documentary depicting the use of W.P. munitions against Fallujah by the U.S. Army. You may remember that most people killed in Fallujah were civilians, though it was indeed the hotbed of the Resistance at the time. Anyway, journalist Guiliana Sgrena made the documentary, before being captured by a group of insurgents. She appeared on t.v. like the other poor souls who were most ceremoniously beheaded, but her release was negotiated by one Nicola Calipari, an Italian inteliigence agent who had negotiated the release of 5 Italian hostages in Iraq. Upon her release, the car she and Calipari rode in was gunned down approaching a U.S. checpoint, killing Calipari and wounding Sgrena. She told her story to 60 minutes. Sgrena writes for a borderline Communist newspaper in Italy and was openly anti-war. All I ask is, isn't this whole situation a little suspicious, or at least peculiar? We have the U.S. seeking to disram Iraq of WMD's, then sequentially dropping WMD's on targets within a civillian city. When an embarassing news report surfaces, the author is quickly stolen away by insurgents. After a 28 day span she is released, because an Italian National Hero who had arranged the release of numerous prior hostages (while we "don't negotiate with terrorists", and I've seen the beheadings online which prove that), somehow convinces them to let her go. Then, their vehicle, as it approaches the airport, is gunned down by Americans, followed by yet another embarassing news report. What do you think? Is it safe to say that Israel secured W.P. munitions from the U.S., since we sold them the rest of their military? And is it safer to say that the U.S. knew of the chances that W.P. rounds would be used on Lebanon? So is it thusly safe to say that the U.S. didn't try to stop them? Is it at least safe to say that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been so liberally lathered on before the Bush Administration? All I know is, WMD's are WMD's are WMD's, no matter who is dropping them on who, what chemicals or biologicals or elements are used, or how badly the struggle becomes to cover them up. I encourage you to do some googling of your own, see some of what the man behind the curtain doesn't want you to pay attention to.
4 comments:
There is no question that WP is a chemical weapon and chemical weapons are usually considered to be WMDs, even though they are unlikely to cause "mass" casualties.
Keep in mind that the Geneva conventions have always applied to the U.S. and has always been recognized law by our Courts. The recent ruling simply said that Geneva applies to terrorist suspects, too.
Matthew, while it is good to argue against logical fallacies when you see them, to do so by using your own logical fallacies makes your argument no better. Your use of the phrase "communist journalist" is not only an ad hominem attack (a communist could be telling the truth), you also commit several others, from lack of evidence to burden of proof, since you have no evidence that any of these journalists (I'm not sure which one you are referring to, but one is Italian and the other is Lebanese -- there aren't a whole lot of communists in Italy or Lebanon) are in any way communist.
And just to be clear, what you are arguing is that it is okay to violate our Constitution if you think it will make us safer? Not passing judgment one way or the other, just making sure to clarify your position. Also, and this is what I think this is what Michael is trying to say -- if we use the same tactics as terrorists -- WMDs and attacking innocent civilians (even if accidentally) -- how does that make us the good guys? You could make a case to support your side of the argument, but haven't done so yet.
>I on the contrary, have no problem giving up some of my freedoms for a safer society.
And many Americans agree with you. But who says you have the right to enforce that same feeling on others who disagree, particularly when the Constitution says otherwise? The Constitution does not say you have the freedom of speech "except during war time," it says you have the freedom of speech.
>I have nothing to hide over what I say on the phone. Tap my wire. I am not saying violate any constitution.
The Constitution does allow for surveillance, but not without a warrant or some other form of check on unrestrained power. The ability to spy on Americans, without some balance, could be misused, whether by Bush or by Hillary Clinton or by whoever.
>If national security conflicts with something that is forbidden in our constitution, if the grounds warrant it, we should see if there could be an amendment. the constitution is above all things in our country, the only way around it is through amending it.
Agreed, but some people are advocating violating the Constitution because we are in a time of war without amending it. There is also a real question as to how effective many of these suggestions would be in actually helping out our national security.
>But our constitution doesn't state that we can't use W.M.D.s on our enemies which is what the original argument was about. Because if that was the case, we really screwed up in Hiroshima then.
In reality, it does say that (see below). Many historians argue that we did screw up in Hiroshima.
>It was in relevance to my U.N. comments.
Not quite. It was in reference to the use of WMDs and other things that violate the Geneva conventions. Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that treaties properly passed by the Senate are the "supreme law of the land" and equivalent to the Constitution. The Geneva Conventions (as well as the U.N. charter) are approved treaties under American law and therefore are the Supreme Law of the land. Anything that would violate the Geneva Conventions and/or the U.N. Charter is, therefore, unconstitutional. Whether those things should be illegal is another question. But if one wants to violate the Geneva Conventions, they have get the Senate to vote to leave the convention in order to do it legally.
>First off, you know how I feel about the U.N. I think they are a worthless entity that probably does more bad then good in this world.
While I understand your frustration with the U.N., this is an extreme statement that is difficult to back up with any evidence. While it is true that collective military action by the U.N. and peacekeeping missions have often failed, some of them have succeeded. And moreso, this type of action is only one part of what the U.N. does. And it is clear that the U.N. has had much more success in other areas such as aid to developing countries, disaster relief and other things. Besides, the initial purpose behind the creation of the U.N. was to prevent World War III. Obviously, it has been successful on that measure, regardless of what people on TV are saying these days. And there is no question that since the U.N. was created, there are more democratic countries in the world and fewer dictatorships and totalitarian countries. The U.N., while not solely responsible for that trend, has played a part. They may be ineffective at some things and useless at others, but to say that they are worthless or that they cause more bad than good is an extreme statement that would be close to impossible to support with evidence.
Your analogy, while internally logical, doesn't apply. Countries do not act the same way that individuals do, so comparing a country's situation to an individual's situation is a false analogy.
>Israel's allegiance is to the protection of her citizens above all else.
For the most part, I agree. But there are good ways to protect citizens and bad ways. And the "above all else" statement isn't entirely logical, since the only sure way to protect Israeli citizens would be to kill all Arabs in the world. No one, even in Israel, seriously advocates anything like that, so it is not "above all else." Standards of morality still apply. Why is it okay to respond to the "slicing and dicing" of civilians by slicing and dicing other civilians? Again, I'm not saying Israel is right or wrong, I'm just saying these are questions that have to be asked and philosophical arguments have to back them up for this to make sense.
>we are fighting enemies who use human shields for protection.
This is clearly true, but most of the civilians killed were not being used as human shields.
>I would not even hold the U.N. to the same level as the U.S. constitution.
You might not, but American law (based on that Constitution) clearly does.
Post a Comment