You are probably right on this point.
I remember reading something about chemical, by all means non-lethal beeing
used, but I cannot back it up ( maybe I simply should say: I have proof but
cannot give them out in the name of national security, because that is whar
the rest of the word is supposed to be pleased with when asking USA for
proofs).
I will try to investigate more into this tho. Funny thing tho is that if you
pour water on the enemy it is teaoretically using a chemical weapon.
Drac
carolann <carolannh at charter.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e6db93e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote]> "count dracula" <dracula at netsonic.fi> wrote in message
> news:3e6d8e11 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
>
> If I could stretch my money as far as this story stretches the truth I
could
> feed Iraq's hungry for a year. Did you research this before you started
> spreading it? I researched it as soon as it was sent to me. It was US
> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering a question with the
statement
> that, regrettably, US military confronted with armed civilians, or US
> military finding themselves in situations where innocents are gathered
> together with Iraqi combatants cannot legally use non-lethal things like
> tear gas to disable (preferable over killing them I would say) but by
> international law they can use deadly weapons instead. He finds that the
> international law that says they can kill but not disable by using a
> "bio-chemical weapon" of non-deadly tear gas (etc) puts them in a very bad
> situation where innocents are concerned, or when US troops are also in
> jeopardy and/or have cornered combatants combined with innocents.
>
> The other day I looked everywhere I could look to find one shred of real
> truth to this story, beyond the "truth" I have stated. I listened to the
> audio, I went to C-Span, I went to the House Armed Services Committee
> archives, I went to news services, but the only sources that said it as
> "Pentagon Plans to Use Biochemical Weapons on Iraq" all stemmed to some
site
> called the Sunshine-Project. And even there the audio told me the same
> thing...they regretted that they could kill but not temporarily disable if
> the weapon was a gas instead of a bullet. Several sites had the same type
of
> headline but referred back to this same "Sunshine-Project". They are
> attempting to confuse the reader with the term biochemical weapon. If you
> got your information from somewhere else....I'd love to hear about it.
Here
> is the audio in question:
>
> http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/support/gasiraq.mp3
>
> I don't want war as much as you don't want war but there are enough
> negatives to say about it without throwing in things that you don't make
> very sure there is a fully truthful basis for. But seriously, if you find
> more, please let me know. I mean fully documented and indisputable
> information. It's was kind of difficult to cover everything, but I tried.
>
> By the way, as I researched this I found out a bit about the history of
> biochemical weapons. Pretty interesting stuff if you don't think about it
in
> human terms.
>
>
|
