SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Days ARE Evil

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

This article is a confirmation of an Italian documentary that brought to light that the U.S. used white phosphorus as a weapon against the Iraqis in Fallujah. The web site address is probably on the previous page or two.


By BBC News
Republished from BBC News


The Pentagon has come clean and said that 'White Phosphorus' was used in Iraq


The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year’s offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

“It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,” spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC – though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that the substance – which can cause burning of the flesh – constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on “poor information”.

‘Incendiary’

The US-led assault on Falluja – a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad – displaced most of the city’s 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC’s PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions “primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases”.

“However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants.”

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was “conventional munition”, not a chemical weapon.

It is not “outlawed or illegal”, Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

“The combined effects of the fire and smoke – and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground – will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives,” he said.

‘Particularly nasty’

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone’s body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: “Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful… These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears… it could burn right down to the bone.”

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: “It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people.”

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

end of article.

It seems that the U.S. is willing to give Sadam chemical weapons and we are also willing to use them.

The video has very graphic examples of women and children who were burned alive by this weapon.

The evil is boiling to the surface.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/16 16:17Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

What is white phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a solid, waxy man-made chemical which ignites spontaneously at about 30C and produces an intense heat, bright light and thick pillars of smoke.


The US military says it used white phosphorus to flush out insurgents

It continues to burn until deprived of oxygen and, if extinguished with water, can later reignite if the particles dry out and are exposed again to the air.

Also known by the military as WP or Willy Pete, white phosphorus is used in munitions, to mark enemy targets and to produce smoke for concealing troop movements.

It can also be used as an incendiary device to firebomb enemy positions.

What are its effects?

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.

Skin burns must be immersed in water or covered with wet cloths to prevent re-combustion until the particles can be removed.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Long-term exposure to lesser concentrations over several months or years may lead to a condition called "phossy jaw", where mouth wounds are caused that fail to heal and the jawbone eventually breaks down.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/16 16:27Profile
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

bro Mike
well to me what the Lord has spoken in terms of the future isn't changeable but it's a call to repentance for us all. now as a father my initial concern was for my family in the midst of all this. the thing i realize now is that the Lord loves my wife and daughter more than i ever could and will give us all grace enough to endure.

we're not in a hopeless situation for the Lord will surely bring us through it all and see his will done in us and through us. i guess i have been assailed by the peace which surpases all understanding :) in all honesty i'm ready to go home...


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2005/11/16 23:00Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Getting back to Buchanan's book, with this thought in mind, I am not supporting Buchanan's views and do not seek to say that we should support his fixes for this government. The purpose is to bring to light certain thoughts that most have no clue at to what might be.

Page 19

THE WEST POINT MANIFESTO

After the president had widened the theater of conflict to include "axis of evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9/11, the coalitions he had drawn together domestically and abroad began to crumble. But the president was undetered. In an address to the graduates at West Point on June 2 2002, he went further, announcing a new post-cold war mission for the armed forces of the United States.

"Our nation's cause has always been larger than our nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace- a peace that favors human liberty. We will defend the peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."


In asserting America's duty to "extend the peace" the president was assuming a global mission no other president had ever dared assert. And, the Wilsonain rhetoric aside, America had never gone to war for any such gauzy goal as a "just peace...that favors human liberty."

....At West Point, President Bush now rejected as obsolete the doctrines of containment and deterrence that had won the Cold War, and adovated anew an American policy of preemptive war:

"Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies...If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In this world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."


....The president then took the Bush Doctrine a great leap forward, asserting a sovereign right to prevent any nation from ever acquiring the power to challenge the strategic supremacy of the United States:

[b]"Competition between great nations is inevitable, but armed conflict in our world is not...America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge--thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."[/b]

This was breathtaking. President Bush was saying to Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi; You may compete with us in trade, but we will not allow you to increase your strength to where it challenges America's power.....


But the president was not finished at West Point.

[b]"All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave...the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and the world."[/b]



Where in Scripture does it speak about peace peace peace?

Where in Scripture does it speak of the fortress becoming the thing that is worshiped?

In Christ
Jeff


In Christ


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/17 15:21Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re: The Martyr option

Quote:
"Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies...If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.



In all fairness Bush has a point here. Instead of May Day parades of missiles and tanks in Red Square, our enemies hide in mountains without sanction of legitimate government.

Yet, as Christians how can we approve of preemptive war? (Some would ask, how can we approve of war at all?)

It's a moral delimma that is completely different then the cold war struggle against the Soviet Union. The only ethical and moral position left to us is to tighten border security hoping that nothing else happens. Even if we are hit again, we may not have the right to strike back because no government will willingly take credit for these assaults or admit that terrorists planned these attackes within their border. (Why would they?)

Perhaps the only acceptable choice left to American Christians in the face of terrorism is to simply hope it doesn't happen again and if it does we can die as martyrs for world peace. Any other response will require premptive strikes or overthrow of legitimate governments, which are morally objectionable.

Martyrdom was the policy of the first century church towards violence. Could it work as a national policy? I remember a historian once observing about the early church. "The Apostle Paul had handed the Roman Empire a tremendous challenge...how do you defeat a people who believe that defeat is victory?"

Well, defeat may be the only road to victory for Christians in this country. Our conservative and liberal leaders are taking us places that we cannot follow.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/17 16:22Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Mike wrote:

Quote:
It's a moral delimma that is completely different then the cold war struggle against the Soviet Union. The only ethical and moral position left to us is to tighten border security hoping that nothing else happens. Even if we are hit again, we may not have the right to strike back because no government will willingly take credit for these assaults or admit that terrorists planned these attackes within their border. (Why would they?)




Is seems we always hear the wrong questions asked. We hear that it is better that we fight on foreign soil against the terrorist than on our own soil. This seems to be the wisdom that is accepted today by the vast majority of people.

First, why does everyone believe this? The emphasis of thread was to expose how people are led to believe a lie. The Nazi establishment of the 1930's to 1945 created the science of propaganda in a way that had not existed before.
Remember Goelbels statement, "Repeat the lie enough times and it becomes the truth."

There is a great difference between the Soviet Union situation and the current situation. But how is it different? I have heard that Osama Bin Laden hates the U.S. for who we are. President Bush has stated this many times. Yet this in not the truth. Osama Bin Laden hates us for what we do.

Remember when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? The U.S. trained and equiped Osama Bin Laden to wage terror against the Russians. Osama Bin Laden hated the Russians because they were invading Islamic lands. We created Osama Bin Laden and his organization. I am sure he did not hate the U.S. back then. So what is the real reason for Osama Bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. now? Why has he turned agaisnt the U.S.?

He and Al Queda hate us for what we do. This is the real truth. In a Scriptural analogy, Satan and his world does not hate those who profess Christ, the world hates those who follow Christ. This is the question that no one wants to know the answer too. Why? Are we blinded by pride?

You see in history terrorism has always existed. So the situation of the Soviet Union and the Cold War is different than what we are experiencing now. What is the difference?
According to history terrorism is the price of empire. Where ever a nation has strived to become an empire, terrorism has surfaced to oppose that nation. So how should we, America defend ourselves and our homes? If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire. The terrorists are over here because we are over there. This last thought was gleaned from the book that I have been posting from.

So why do we seek to be an empire? Why do we communicate a doctrine that says that we will no longer permit another nation of the face of the earth to threaten us militarily? What is the truth? What is the lie?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/18 11:49Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Quote:
So how should we, America defend ourselves and our homes? If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire.



Well, I'm with you on this one. Yet I am curious how many people really want this.. My premise is that perhaps there aren’t many moral choices left for this world. Our hope lies in the next realm…this one is corrupt and all who live here are touched by this corruption.

Let’s consider how we might reverse our global influence without causing more evil. First order of business is to allow the oil companies the entrepreneurial incentive to develop domestic energy sources. Next, in the interest of defending ourselves from risk of further homeland terroism we will have to concentrate on clamping down on our Canadian and Mexican borders.

Globally we should start where our world power began…in Europe. Now that Nato has served it’s purpose nicely we can withdraw the few remaining troops from the continent.

First order of business in the mid-east is reinstating Saddam Hussein and leaving Iraq. He is still alive, and enough of his Baath party remains in hiding to reconstruct the former government. This should solve many problems.

The next mid east policy would be to allow Arabs to try their luck at removing the Zionist squatters from their soil without US interference. Besides, it doesn’t have to be genocide because Europe, as a contribution to the mid-east peace process should be more then happy to welcome back the Jews.

The next item on the agenda is to withdraw out troops from South Korea and our aircraft carriers from Taiwan. Maybe these Islands will fare better then we imagined. In the meantime we can use our massive Navy to strengthen our own border waters. Perhaps, since we would no longer be provoking terroism we can scrap most of our Navy.

I think we can let the UN leave if they choose to.

Don't ask me if I am joking...even I don't know! If we could find away to not be a super power without creating a vacuum I might welcome it. I agree that Al Quaida hates us because of our interference. (I certainly don't agree that we created Al Quida...what happened to free will?) But I agree that our sole super-power status is an unnerving to the rest of the world and don’t blame citizens of other nations for resenting US presence.

In the end, I can’t help feeling this is really a no-win situation. I think that’s what keeps me from being either conservative or liberal…I’m too pessisimistic to believe there is a valid political solution. I don't think there are very many moral choices left in this age. Because we are all connected globally, even shopping at Wal-Mart has evil consequenses…if you think about it hard enough. I’m not trying to be fiesty or argumentative here…only trying to share my frustration at the wall to wall evil that seems to carpet every moral path that lies before us. Any suggestions?


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/18 13:03Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Mike wrote:

Quote:
In the end, I can’t help feeling this is really a no-win situation. I think that’s what keeps me from being either conservative or liberal…I’m too pessisimistic to believe there is a valid political solution. I don't think there are very many moral choices left in this age. Because we are all connected globally, even shopping at Wal-Mart has evil consequenses…if you think about it hard enough. I’m not trying to be fiesty or argumentative here…only trying to share my frustration at the wall to wall evil that seems to carpet every moral path that lies before us. Any suggestions?



I'll start voting again when you run for president.

Amen Brother

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/18 14:05Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Quote:
I'll start voting again when you run for president.



That's one! :-P Bless you Jeff.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/18 14:57Profile









 Re: Days ARE Evil

Quote:
I’m not trying to be fiesty or argumentative here…only trying to share my frustration at the wall to wall evil that seems to carpet every moral path that lies before us.

Have you been listening to Don Francisco's Duke and Duchess song?

He describes a money-craved society with the poor outside begging for a crust of bread while others live in obscene luxury. And then the wrath of God which will fall on those greedy people one day. But for me, the punchline is that 'high above the King of kings hears every [u]little[/u] prayer'. How that 'little' has encouraged me many many times, to seek my Father in heaven.

 2005/11/18 15:05





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy