AP report on Israel using white phosphorus in Lebanon

[redacted]

At One Lebanon Hospital, Many Portraits Of Bombings' Toll

By Kathy Gannon Of THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TYRE, Lebanon (AP)-

(snip)

Jawad Najem, a surgeon at the hospital that is named for his family, said patients were admitted Sunday with burns from Israeli phosphorus incendiary weapons.

"Mahmoud Sarour, 14, was admitted to hospital yesterday and was treated for phosphorus burns in his face," Najem said. Mahmoud's 8-month-old sister, Maryam, also suffered similar burns to her neck and hands when an Israeli rocket hit her family's car just a kilometer from the hospital.

MORE
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=29044&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2

[redacted]

1. Here's the CNN International video censored in the U.S.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Lebanese_Doctor_Says_Phosphorus_0724.html

[bdamomma]

52. this has OUR NAME written all over it

how can we stop this, what if those were our children. OUR CHILDREN. White phosphorus like depleted uranium and agent orange, this is being done in our name.

[redacted]

80. Pls. Rec. This should be at the top of Greatest Page!!!!!!!!!! Important

[me b zola]

2. I saw this earlier today on cnn

Israel's response is that they are in complience with international law, which sounds to me as if they are not denying using WP. My understanding of international law regarding WP is that it may be used on structual targets, but not human targets. I guess Israel takes that to mean that a car fleeing from a war zone is a structure. :grr:

[Codeine]

13. Your understanding is incorrect.

There's no such law; that's a myth like the old stories about .50cal ammunition. WP isn't covered by chem weapon limits and there's no law saying it can only be used on structures.

[On the Road]

14. It Seems to be a Matter of Interpretation

Thank you for pointing out that WP is not named in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

However, the CWC is more general than that, and prohibits all weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare."

"If...the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because...any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

So at best the administration can say it's skirting the law.

[Codeine]

51. All laws are about the technicalities.

There's been a lot of discussion about WP, but it's properties are such that it falls through the legal cracks, as it were. It needs a very specific law adopted to cover it, but that's probably not forthcoming.

[Laughing Mirror]

56. Its properties are such that it burns people like napalm

That's what whisky pete's properties are, warts, legal loopholes & all.

[Codeine]

67. Yeah, Willy Pete sucks

but it, sadly in my view, doesn't fall under the purview of existing law sufficiently to make a case out of it. A new convention specifically dealing with it is a necessity.

[Laughing Mirror]

72. An order from the criminals in charge in Us & Israel to stop using it

is the necessity needed here, right this instant, here and now. Fuck "a new convention." What would that prove? Israel in Lebanon & US in Fallujah wouldn't pay any attention to any convention anyway.

[Codeine]

92. Too true, too entirely true. nt

[KansDem]

101. I'm reminded of flame throwers when I see white phosphorus used...

I remember seeing horrific images from WWII documentaries in which flame throwers were used to smoke out the enemy in south Pacific jungles. Images of people completely ablaze as they run out of caves, only to succumb as they were being burned alive. I always thought that this weapons should be outlawed along with the chemical weapons from WWI.

White phosphorus should be outlawed too.

[Codeine]

111. Absolutely.

There's no reason for it to be used, but when a law has a loophole a lawyer will exploit it. They need to fix the law.

[On the Road]

100. If You Look at the Wording, it Does NOT

appear that it is necessary to list each specific substance. The prohibition is against the use of substances that injure through their chemical properties.

[Codeine]

112. Unfortunately,

greater legal minds than ours have determind otherwise.

[democrank]

3. I pray this heinous, despicable truth

somehow makes it front and center with the media. First Fallujah, now this. Have we lost our minds?

[DELUSIONAL]

6. It was wrong in Fallujah and it is wrong in this case.

Because Israel did this -- doesn't make it right.

If we condemn our own military then we must also condemn Israel's military use of phosphorus.

[HongKonger]

108. Sad

And it sounds like the same game plan.

Unfortunately.

[Little Star]

37. It can't even make it front and center on DU.......

This incident has been posted on DU a number of times in the last couple of days. Each time it drops like a rock. Maybe its to ugly for people to see.

[bdamomma]

54. people have their blinders on and are in denial

that we are the cause of all this. and we remain silent, how much longer can we stay silent.

[fooj]

88. Quite frankly, I am apalled by the apathetic Americans...

it's beyond me.....:cry:

[redacted]

116. This time we're on top of the greatest page. Thank you DUers!

[kenny blankenship]

4. That means it must be OK.

[ComerPerro]

43. at least they aren't terrorists who deliberately target civillains, right?

Crazy world

[rumpel]

5. Anderson Cooper - also reported that the US used it in Iraq as well but

that the substance was NOT "explicitly" banned!

What kind of a hooey is that?

[azndndude]

7. Who can we call or email to vent our anger at this outrage?

Or will it matter?

[madeline_con]

12. All your reps, the WH, the Israeli gov...... n/t

[raysr]

85. WE have no reps

they're lined up behind the terrorist state of Isreal.

[bloom]

8. kick

[gratuitous]

9. I'll go with a line from Babylon 5

Is this what people sign up for the military to do? Use white phosphorus on civilians? And then try to weasel around it with "we're in compliance" non-denial denials. Is this honorable? Is this doing one's duty? Is a country that commands these things be done worthy of our loyalty?

Violence cannot drive out violence. Darkness cannot overcome darkness.

[redacted]

10. Exactlly. Duty, Honor, Country.

There's no honor here.

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. kick

Sounds like it's all the same playbook.

[BrightKnight]

15. credible? Phosphorus would not have stopped at the skin.

That child had superficial skin burns. Phosphorous is difficult to extinguish and would not stop at the skin.

That doctor looked like he was pissed enough to say anything. I would like confirmation from credible sources.

[raysr]

86. Apologist!

[MGD]

16. It is fucking hideous without a doubt

We're going to need to root these devils out of their fighting positions the old fashioned way, with riflemen, machinegunners, and grenadiers. If not this, then we're going to have to learn to accept these horrors. For different reasons, neither option is appealing. Above all else, there should be no mercy for these cowardly dogs who fight amongst children. Their pleas for surrender and mercy should be met with cold hearts and hot lead when the time comes. Their rights as humans are forfeit as far as I'm concerned.

[cali]

17. What fucking rot

what utter bullshit. There's no way that using white phosphorus can be justified.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Accept it?

Not in this lifetime. How sleazey to even suggest it.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. Mmmkay

You said: If not this, then we're going to have to learn to accept these horrors.

You accept turning kids into crispy critters with chemical weapons. I decline.

[Bassic]

22. Although that line was a bit clumsy,

the whole of the post clearly advocates using more conventional techniques, rather than weapons like White Phosphorus. So I think the posters' objection to it is quite clear.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. Clumsy?

After rereading it a second time (ouch, my eyes) it clearly states that if "conventional techniques" don't work, then we have to accept using WP on civilians, including children.

[Bassic]

25. As I said, clumsily written, but it is quite obvious that

the poster advocates normal techniques rather than this, and the line in question was only meant as an expression of the poster's fear that this is far from the last time we will see White Phosphorus used in conflicts like this one.

[MGD]

31. thank you

after watching the video, I posted in disgust and anger and the results were less than clear I guess.

[stepnw1f]

75. Uh... No It is Obvious

this person likes war and death. That's what's obvious.

[MGD]

23. Selective interpretation on your part.

I was actually saying that hiding behind babies is an effective countermeasure to superior airpower/firepower and that, eventually, as this becomes more apparent to our enemies, we're going to have to go back to the light infantry way of doing things. accepting the use of WP on children isn't acceptable. Frankly, I'm opposed to its use against humans period.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. our enemies?

I don't have any enemies. You obviously think you have many, and that they aren't even human.

[MGD]

30. I guess your head is stuck in the sand then

and once again you selectively interpret my words in order to form your argument. I said "their rights as humans are forfeit", I didn't say they weren't humans.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Righteous indignation?

Weren't you the one who was so upset that our "enemy" Venezuela was buying Russian planes and would soon be using them against US troops?

[Scurrilous]

19. LOL

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[kiki]

26. Aah, I love a bit of warmongering rhetoric in the morning.

What "cowardly dogs" these Hezbollah are.

Not like the brave superheroes who have the pure, brass-balled courage it takes to press a button and drop flaming, agonising death on people from 1,000 feet in the air...

"Cold hearts and hot lead"? GMAFB. Guess it suits you just fine that you won't be anywhere in the vicinity when your little wargasm fantasy comes to pass.

[MGD]

32. You obviously missed the whole fucking point too

anything for a little righteous indignation though, huh?

[kiki]

44. No, I got the whole "fucking point"...

My "fucking point" was that whenever I see people calling out of their own sense of righteous indignation for somebody - not the person who's calling for it, you understand, but SOMEBODY else, SOMEBODY willing to do the dirty work - to go and kill a whole bunch of other people, it gets my hackles up.

I understand you weren't advocating the use of white phosphorus, but your use of the word "cowardly" rings a little hollow when you choose to ignore the fact that this is a powerful nation attacking a less powerful nation, generally using planes and artillery and shit that means they never have to get within a square mile of the "enemy". Hezbollah might be cowards by your definition, but what Israel is doing isn't exactly the definition of "courage" either.

Kinda reminds me of the "cowardly" comments bandied about regarding the 9/11 hijackers, regardless of how fucked up their motives were. The guy who flies a plane into a building and perishes in a flaming ball of destruction? A "coward". The guy who mans the automatic cannon on an attack helicopter, mowing down unarmoured targets while floating hundreds of feet above the ground, encased in bullet-proof steel? A "hero" who must be "supported".

Anyway, regardless of the specifics, your language - your "cold hearts and hot lead" spiel - is warmongering bullshit. Sorry.

[Bretttido]

62. I remember when Bill Maur got kicked off the air for pointing that out

Coward: One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

[kiki]

113. Cowards = them. Heroes = us.

The details are irrelevant. Now get back to watching TV. It's doubleplus good!

[PA Democrat]

27. And that is exactly how atrocities are justified-by dehumanizing the enemy

"Their rights as humans are forfeit as far as I'm concerned."

That's how suicide bombers justify their deeds, how Hezbollah justifies its actions; that's how the Israelis are justifying their actions in Lebanon, how they justify their actions in the occupied territories. Paint the enemy and all those innocents around him as less than human, and it's appalling what can be justified.

It's despicable no matter who does it.

[QuettaKid]

28. KICK. nt.

.

[jonnyblitz]

33. it's racism when you dehumanize the enemy to the point where

their lives have no value.

[MGD]

34. wrong

A convicted killers rights as a human being are also forfeit (in most societies). It is justified because the killer has demonstrated a behavior that society, in general, finds deplorable and, more to the point, incompatible with civilization. I find the tactics and doctrine of the terrorists to be incompatible with a civilized society and, as such, I conclude that their right to exist as humans is forfeit. I also conclude that air power is not an acceptable means of dealing with them in light of their tactics and light infantry will have to do the job. I'm also rational enough to understand that neither of our opinions will have any impact whatsoever at all on the prosecution of this war.

[PA Democrat]

35. When were those innocent children who have died on BOTH sides

found guilty of a crime?

[MGD]

36. My point is that airpower is not the answer to this problem

The situation needs to be resolved by light infantry. Understanding this has revealed a deeper understanding of the conflict; Iran and Syria have made it clear what will happen if Israel invades with their light infantry (which is poised at the border and ready to do the job properly) making them very much complicit in the killing of innocents and significantly reducing Israel's own complicity in these acts as they are clearly willing to fight this fight on the ground. It is Iran and Syria's continued medddling that have dictated the use of Israeli airpower and artillery and; thus, the deaths of innocents.

[PA Democrat]

38. When you use wording such as

"we're going to have to learn to accept these horrors."

and

"Their rights as humans are forfeit as far as I'm concerned."

you dehumanize the "enemy" and justify atrocities. If that helps you sleep at night, good for you.

[me b zola]

102. "The situation needs to be resolved by light infantry."

Yeah, how's that working in Iraq? You can't defeat ideologies with missiles or light infantry.

[kiki]

45. I also find Israel's tactics "deplorable"

and "incompatible with civilization".

[LostinVA]

114. Bingo -- good post n/t

[stepnw1f]

74. "We"?

there is no "We" here.

[Ms. Clio]

98. fucking revolting

what do you think just happened to "your rights as a human being?"

[Henny Penny]

115. Devils??? Cowardly Dogs???

your words betray you.

Their rights as humans are forfeit?? Who are you to declare any such thing?

[oc2002]

39. So Israel and the US are the ones using WMD's on civilians...how ironic.

That we just make ourselves evermore a pariah among civilized nations by the group of necroconservatives now in office.

[MamaBear]

40. kick

:cry:

[blonndee]

41. Kick. The truth hurts. nt

[Marie26]

42. kick

for the truth.

[mconvente]

46. thats it ive had enough

I didn't realize how brutal Israel is. Fuck them. That's right. FUCK Israel. Yes, they put up with a lot of shit, but they dish out way more. Innocent attacks on children. Destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon despite saying they are the Lebanese Government's "friends". I'm sick and tired of the Pro-Israel bullshit. Every conflict takes compromises, but they are unwilling to do so. So thus I say, FUCK Israel.

[bluedog]

47. Pauls Zahn asked MARK REGEV, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY

*********8he hemmed ND NAWED ..SHE HAD TO PRY THIS OUT OF HIM!!!!!!!!


ZAHN: The Lebanese health minister today accused Israel of putting phosphorous in its bombs, which causes extreme burns upon impact. And we are going to show our audience now a picture of a severely burned child at a hospital in Tyre.

Is Israel using phosphorous in any of its weapons?

REGEV: Unfortunately, Paula, you have this sort of atrocity propaganda. It comes up especially in Arab media. We have had all sorts of stories of Israelis giving, deliberately, out bird flu, Israelis giving out AIDS deliberately to Palestinian children, Israelis...

ZAHN: But what about this particular...

REGEV: ... using depleted uranium.

ZAHN: ... charge? Are you using...

REGEV: Well...

ZAHN: ... phosphorous or not?

REGEV: ... I'm telling you, this particular charge -- this particular charge is simply not true. Israel, the sort of weaponry we use is the exact same sort of weaponry that other armies use. What we do, what we use is totally within the international standards.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/24/pzn.01.html

[originalpckelly]

60. That is a non-denial denial. SICK FUCK!

:grr:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. White phosphorous is a WMD.

And it has been banned by the Geneva Conventions.

The U.S., and I assume Israel, was not a signatory to that particular addendum.

But it makes no nevermind.

[Codeine]

55. No it hasn't.

That is incorrect, as has been explained many times.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Protocol III Geneva Conventions 1980.

[Codeine]

61. Says nothing about White Phosphorus. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. You're being obtuse.

Given the topic you've chosen to be obtuse about, that speaks volumes.

Basically, that's like Saddam didn't violate Geneva Conventions because his specific variety of nerve gas wasn't specifically listed under the Geneva Chemical Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions ban these incendiary weapons, of which White Phosphorous is a particularly nasty variety.

[Codeine]

64. Baloney

White Phosphorus isn't a WMD and it's not a chem weapon. Your argument is invalid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. I never claimed it was a chemical weapon.

It is a weapon of mass destruction.

Worse than chemical weapons, worse than biological weapons.

[Codeine]

68. Legally it's not.

You can argue the point all you'd like, but until it's classified as such a weapon there's no way to bring it's use to trial in a war crimes tribunal. Hopefully the laws can be written so as to specifically include it, and soon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Legally it is.

Like I said, it's been banned by the Geneva Conventions.

[Marie26]

81. It's been banned for

use against civilians, but is still allowed for military purposes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. I suppose that baby on television...

is part of Hezbollah's Elite Infant Division.

[Marie26]

84. Please

I'm not disputing that this was a war crime, just explaining to you what the law is on the use of white phosporous. It isn't considered a chemical weapon, & it isn't banned completely under the Geneva Convention. The use against civilians is banned, however.

[Codeine]

91. Actually, it's not even banned for that.

A legal loophole that exploits the fact that WP isn't exactly an incendiary weapon helps avoid that restriction. Incendiary weapons are defined as specifically being weapons designed to set fire as their primary effect, like a flamethrower. The flammable nature of WP is technically a secondary effect, and as such doesn't qualify.

[Marie26]

93. Nope

It's not considered an incendiary weapon when it's just used to illuminate, but it is one when it's being used specifically to cause burns & injuries to people. The Geneva Convention's definition of an incendiary weapon is one that has the primary effect of setting flames, or causing burn injury to persons. If it's being used as an incendiary weapon, it can't be used against or near civilian populations. The US military has used white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon in Iraq.

"US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said. "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

Under the Geneva Convention, Protocol III, combatants are prohibited from using incendiary devices against civilians:

"Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects:

It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

If these white phosphorus bombs were used to cause burns, and they were used against a civilian population, that's a war crime.

[Codeine]

94. Not really.

Because it's not specifically classified as an incendiary weapon, that's not applicable.

Some opponents have argued that because of its incendiary effects, WP is potentially restricted by the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III), which prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. In any case, the third protocol has not been signed by the United States.

[Marie26]

97. Read the definition:

"Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances."

You got it right that an incediary weapons is defined as one that has the primary effect of setting fires, but you missed the second part of that definition - weapons that are designed to cause burns or injuries to people also qualify as an incendiary weapon. When WP is used to injure/kill people, it is an incendiary weapon, and cannot be used against civilians. It doesn't matter whether the US signed the Geneva Convention - if you've noticed, this is Israel. And Israel signed the Geneva Convention & is bound to those terms.

[Codeine]

110. That's just not so.

Weapons with a secondary effect (like smoke grenades) are specifically not included. The international community has never stated that Willy Pete is a banned weapon, no matter how many well-intentioned peace activists and humanitarian organizations want that to be true.

[Marie26]

120. Link?

I've provided links for my position. Could you please provide links for your position, beyond the unattributed cut & paste you have done on a Wikipedia article? Thanks.

[Codeine]

90. No, it hasn't.

Show me a ban on Willy Pete in the GCs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. I already did.

[mom cat]

50. What part of the term WAR CRIMES do they not understand?

[truebrit71]

53. Fucking criminals...

..:grr:

[QuettaKid]

57. F*ck Israel.

Lebanese ambulance.

[bdamomma]

59. WAR CRIMES

apparently does not apply to these assholes, this has our name written all over it. Those bombs were supplied by the US of A.

We need to call our Senators and Reps and tell them that these are war crimes being practiced out there, just like in Iraq, and people wonder why they hate us, we will pay a hefty price for all this pain we are afflicting on others.

[mom cat]

104. We need to say loud and clear that this massacre has gone to far.

[fooj]

89. It's like the assylum has opened up and the war criminals

are flooding the continents. Insane. Evil bastards.

[mom cat]

106. Cheney playing with the "dark side"

The US has for a long time made dirty deals with criminals to subvert real democracy.

[fooj]

118. These treasonous, rat bastards HATE democracy.

That's pretty obvious...

[Bretttido]

66. Kick, the truth will set you free

[redacted]

71. kick for the west coast lunch hour nt

[Gregorian]

70. I have a suggestion. We go to the source of manufacture.

Let's stop them from making these. Not try to stop them from using them.


The entire planet should be free of this kind of thing.


I don't see any other effective way to deal with this.

[Poll_Blind]

73. That's one of the ways the U.S. finally started beating METH...

...by going to the 3, I think it was, companies that made some key ingredient and asking them to clamp down on production and increase regulation. It actually worked, to some measurable extend. There's a reporter for The Oregonian, I believe, who did some great work on this subject. Anyway, FWIW, I agree.

PB

[Gregorian]

77. That was what I had in mind.

I remember that Oregonian report.

I keep imagining how much money the ammunition manufacturers are making these days. They should all be put in front of their own products. Well, that's a bit harsh. But that's how I feel.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Yeah, well, you know, it's easier to rally people behind the drug war

than it is to rally people behind not blowing each other up.

[redacted]

76. Agreed. Any idea who supplied these to Israel? My guess would be the

United States? Does anyone else sell arms to them?

[redacted]

96. Hi Gregorian: See post 95 below.

[redacted]

78. Folks. This is important. Let's kick to the top spot on the greatest page!

We only need a few more reccs.

[greguganus]

79. HERE IS SOME GOOD INFORMATION ON WHITE PHOSPHORUS

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_Phosphorus

[redacted]

82. Thanks Greg. Welcome to DU! nt

[sonias]

87. This is Israel following our lead

We have shown them that using the maximum amount of force is acceptable. No matter that cost to civilians. We're taught the world that WMD are OK in war.

War criminals!

Sonia

[redacted]

95. Where are these missiles built? Here's one report:

Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent of the UK's Independent newspaper, identified two possible manufacturers last week. In an interview from his home in Beirut broadcast a couple of days ago on Democracy Now, he reported:

"I asked tonight, for example, the Minister of Finance whether he's considered suing the major American armaments manufacturers, who are producing the missiles, who are killing all of these innocent people here. And he hadn't thought of it. You know, I mean, most of the missiles which are landing here are made in Seattle and in Miami, Florida, by Lockheed Martin or Boeing."

Note that he does NOT say that these missiles are loaded with white phosphorus, and bear in mind that many other kinds of ordinance (such as shells) can be used to deliver white phosphorous besides missiles.

Nevertheless, he's an authoritative source and has a track record of meticulous accuracy in his reporting. It's information that deserves our consideration.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257&mode=thread&tid=25

MORE ABOUT ROBERT FISK: SEE ALSO THIS VIDEO from WGBH Boston:

Robert Fisk lecture at MIT on Lebanon and Iraq (introduced by Noam Chomsky)
First broadcast April, 2006; approximately 2 hours, broadband

http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3076

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Ugh.

That's all I can say. Ugh. This needs to stop immediately.

[redacted]

107. Looking for DUers to help monitor CNN International. . .

which is blacked out in the U.S. I wonder if any DUers outside the U.S. or with satellite access could monitor CNN International to watch for follow-up reports to the video posted above. If you can help, please post; if you've already seen a follow-up report, please let us know as well.

[Miss Chybil]

109. They need to STOP BURNING BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!

And everybody else. Our world is hell.

[SPKrazy]

117. Okay, This Makes Me SICK!!!!!!!

I've defended Israel's right to defend herself, and I still do

but this is deplorable.

this is inhumane

this is criminal

this is horrendous

burning the babies

God have mercy on us all, the world has gone mad

[Fovea]

119. Winning hearts and minds

with chemical weapons. The oxymoronic nature of it is like a slap in the face with a wet carp. We are pursuing the politics of blowback and re-radicalize, and it is going to bite us in a painful way.

Our whole policy apperatus is insane-- or worse, entranced by dogma.

This whole region is going to explode, and we will be left to fight our way out, or back to Israel, or what's left of it.

But when the fire-storms and fallout clouds are over, Saudi Arabia and the other so called moderate Arab states will be gone. And only a world wide jihad will remain.

Like I say, we will need the draft in 07 to overthrow Chavez, because that is the only oil we will be getting.

The world will really be in a pickle when all the arabian oil is under a radioactive war zone. The oil industry leaders will either be rulers of the world, or their heads will be on fence posts.

I entirely support the latter.
Really, let's nationalize oil, nat gas, coal, and use the funds to develop safe, renewable energy and pay for universal healthcare.

Because despite all this democracy rhetoric from our beloved decider, everything we do in the region is about oil, and securing its revenues for our cronies.