US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah (B.S. Alert!)

FALLUJAH, November 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988.

“The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally-banned chemical weapons,” resistance sources told Al-Quds Press Wednesday, November 10.

The fatal weapons led to the deaths of tens of innocent civilians, whose bodies litter sidewalks and streets, they added.

“They use chemical weapons out of despair and helplessness in the face of the steadfast and fierce resistance put up by Fallujah people, who drove US troops out of several districts, hoisting proudly Iraqi flags on them. Resistance has also managed to destroy and set fire to a large number of US tanks and vehicles.

“The US troops have sprayed chemical and nerve gases on resistance fighters, turning them hysteric in a heartbreaking scene,” an Iraqi doctor, who requested anonymity, told Al-Quds Press.

“Some Fallujah residents have been further burnt beyond treatment by poisonous gases,” added resistance fighters, who took part in Golan battles, northwest of Fallujah.

In August last year, the United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the “horrible” weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion of Iraq.

After the offensive on Iraq ended on April 9 last year, Iraqis began to complain about unexploded cluster bombs that still litter their cities.

The source of this report is extremely suspect to me in its authenticity.

The possibility is low to nonexistent that we would use chemical weapons in the battle for Fallujah. Trying to conduct MOUT operations in full MOPP (chemical suits, masks, rubber boots and gloves) or masks only is a pain in the A** (been there and not fun). Unless absolutely necessary to minimize causalities would anyone want to use any NBC. However, Geneva Convention and especially an UN international ban on use of chemical weapons (I believe we signed during the Clinton Administration) have us not using any chemicals during wartime.

As per US Military policy from training manuals and field manuals (FM):
REFERENCES: Army FM 3-3, FM 3-4, FM 3-6, FM 3-8, FM 3-10,and FM 3-100.

1. The U.S. may use nuclear weapons to terminate a conflict at the lowest level of hostilities acceptable to us.
2. The U.S. may use chemical weapons in retaliation to deter enemy use of them.
3. The U.S. will never use biological agents.
4. The U.S. renounces first use of herbicides in war.
(Next: pertinate part)
5. The U.S. renounces, as a matter of national policy, the first use of riot control agents (RCAs) in war.
An exception to this is the use in defensive military modes to save lives by controlling riots in areas under direct U.S. control. Another is that if civilians are used by the enemy to screen an attack, RCAs may be used to reduce or prevent casualties. Other exceptions are rescue missions in isolated areas and against escaping prisoners. Additional exceptions include use in rear echelon areas, outside the zone of immediate combat, and to protect convoys from civil disturbances, terrorists, and paramilitary organizations. Use by U.S. Armed Forces of any riot control agent in war is prohibited, including those instances listed above, unless such use is approved in advance by the President.

How many times must you be told that we don't use napalm bombs. We use incindagel! ƒº A sticky flammable substance which burns well even if one tries to extinguish it. But on another note, do you even know where and why those were used? Maybe to light those giant oil filled motes around Baghdad and elsewhere on fire prematurely. Do you remember those oil motes YOUR kind put out there to light up as we approached.

This is funny. I imagine he¡¦s even 1% accurate. No, really! We probably do use CS or CN (On extremely rare occasion), AS USED BY THE POLICE FOR RIOT CONTROL in the US, Germany, GB or for that matter any country! The issue with using such means is that the opponent will always point the finger and call these ¡§Riot Control Agents¡¨ which are NOT considered chemical weapons in the sense which he is trying to define them as. But I imagine if you get hit with a good dose of CS you probably will behave somewhat confused, dazed and distressed for the observer.

We do not use any Sarin, Tabun, VX, Soman or any other nerve, blood, blister, choking agents against anyone. Fact is, WE DON¡¦T EVEN TRAIN IN ITS DEPLOYMENT! The institutional knowledge is all but lost, with our delivery systems or the carrier systems partially gone from our inventory it is probably not possible to effectively use them even if we WANTED to.

Sorry there local Arab reporter. I understand that you assume all other people think like Arabs (Without regard to life or collateral damage) and that all governments are ruthless regimes like yours that are void of any responsibility to anyone and willing to go to any extreme for their end. But the US has not, does not and will not use chemical weapons. We stopped our Bio program in the mid 70s and ONLY conduct research for countering things like Botulism, Anthrax and so on. Stuff people like you play with. Remember the Racine? We retain the RIGHT for a nuclear response against anyone who uses NBC against us, but we do NOT use chem. I wish you¡¦d stop projecting and telling the world how ¡§Your people¡¨ would react in such a situation. You give us very clear insight to the morality and value of life in an Arabs mind when you PROJECT yourself (What your kind would do) into this situation.

The US will go BEYOND any reasonable degree to minimize collateral damage. The US will spend millions where the same job can be accomplished by thousands of dollars by dropping a munition we know is less accurate but may cause more unwanted damage to surrounding buildings. We will place soldiers knowingly in harms way and have lost some because we want to protect sites that are deemed ¡§Culturally¡¨ significant. Imagine that! We accept the fact that we will loose people so that we can protect a ceramic bowl at some museum! NO ONE ON EARTH will go to our length to minimize unwanted damage and is willing to accept that degree of damage to ones own force to preserve innocence and cultural sites and the such. If we were the pigs (Which the Moslem world most definitely is, they will target WTCs and cultural sites and collateral damage is their goal) then the shines of Mohamed¡¦s sons in Karbala would be dust. But instead we spent millions fighting those battles in a more time consuming and possibly more casualty producing manner as to not damage the shrines or kill any more civilians than necessary. Because one thing is for sure, if we wanted to, we could have killed every living soul in Karbala very easily and quickly.

Fact is, we are willing to offer American lives because we try to minimize collateral damage for a people who themselves do not value each other. A people that IS willing to gas their own, is willing to torture, cut off heads, tolerates terrorists, is corrupt to the bone and decadent in almost every way. It¡¦s strange how you consider the West and Christians dirty non believers while you think that raping a little boy as an older man is OK (As commonly practiced), that you¡¦re still a virgin as long as you practice homosexual sex, that wiping you¡¦re a$$ barehanded over a hole in the ground where you squat is some how advanced.

Summary:
Don¡¦t try to drag us down into your gutter. We are not you, we don¡¦t act like your kind would in a similar situation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.