Iraq Regime Admits US Used Mustard, Nerve Gas In Fallujah

[stucco43]

Resistance Report
3-2-5

<DT><CENTER> </CENTER><DT><CENTER><TABLE height=85 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=553 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="601%" height=84><DL><DT>[size=+1]Representative of Iraqi regime's 'Ministry of Health': America used mustard gas, nerve gas and other internationally prohibited substances in al-Fallujah.[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, a representative of the puppet so-called 'Iraqi ministry of health' who was authorized to assess the health conditions in al-Fallujah after the end of the major battles there, announced that the surveys and studies that a medical team did in al-Fallujah and then reported to the 'ministry' confirm that US forces used substances that are internationally prohibited - including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals - in the course of its attacks on the city.[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]Ash-Shaykhli held a press conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad,s Bab al-Mu'azzam section on Tuesday. He began by reporting on the final results of the fact-finding mission's survey of the situation in which the people of al-Fallujah find themselves. He said that the city now is still experiencing the effects of chemical and other types of weapons used by the Americans, which will be causing serious diseases over the long term.[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam asked ash-Shaykhli what were the facts regarding use by the occupation forces of limited nuclear weapons. Dr. ash-Shaykhli said, "What I saw during our researches in al-Fallujah make me believe everything that has been said about that battle. I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say the we found dozens, if I don't say hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses."[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]During the press conference, which was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and Arab journalists, Ash-Shaykhli promised that he would be sending the study and the results that the committee produced to responsible bodies - both Iraqi and international ones.[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]The press conference was attended by correspondents of the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah television network, the Iraqi 'government'-run al-Iraqiyah satellite TV network, and the as-Sumariyah network, in addition to foreign media, such as the American Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service and the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper - besides the correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam.[/size] <DT>[size=+1][/size] <DT>[size=+1]The findings disclosed at Tuesday's press conference must be seen as the most serious statements to be made since the end of nearly four months of military operations in al-Fallujah, Mafkarat al-Islam noted. Mafkarat al-Islam was the first to report on the American occupation forces, use of gasses and burning and chemical substances during the first days after the outbreak of fighting in the city[/size]</DT></DL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></DT>

 

[TheRightWing]

Resistance Report
3-2-5



<DT><CENTER></CENTER><DT><CENTER><TABLE height=85 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=553 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="601%" height=84><DL><DT>[size=+1]Representative of Iraqi regime's 'Ministry of Health': America used mustard gas, nerve gas and other internationally prohibited substances in al-Fallujah.[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, a representative of the puppet so-called 'Iraqi ministry of health' who was authorized to assess the health conditions in al-Fallujah after the end of the major battles there, announced that the surveys and studies that a medical team did in al-Fallujah and then reported to the 'ministry' confirm that US forces used substances that are internationally prohibited - including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals - in the course of its attacks on the city.[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]Ash-Shaykhli held a press conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad,s Bab al-Mu'azzam section on Tuesday. He began by reporting on the final results of the fact-finding mission's survey of the situation in which the people of al-Fallujah find themselves. He said that the city now is still experiencing the effects of chemical and other types of weapons used by the Americans, which will be causing serious diseases over the long term.[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam asked ash-Shaykhli what were the facts regarding use by the occupation forces of limited nuclear weapons. Dr. ash-Shaykhli said, "What I saw during our researches in al-Fallujah make me believe everything that has been said about that battle. I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say the we found dozens, if I don't say hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses."[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]During the press conference, which was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and Arab journalists, Ash-Shaykhli promised that he would be sending the study and the results that the committee produced to responsible bodies - both Iraqi and international ones.[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]The press conference was attended by correspondents of the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah television network, the Iraqi 'government'-run al-Iraqiyah satellite TV network, and the as-Sumariyah network, in addition to foreign media, such as the American Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service and the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper - besides the correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam.[/size] <DT><DT>[size=+1]The findings disclosed at Tuesday's press conference must be seen as the most serious statements to be made since the end of nearly four months of military operations in al-Fallujah, Mafkarat al-Islam noted. Mafkarat al-Islam was the first to report on the American occupation forces, use of gasses and burning and chemical substances during the first days after the outbreak of fighting in the city[/size]</DT></DL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></DT>

These are the same people that said we still have control of our Baghdad airport when we were landing in and out with all of our planes?

 

[miked429]

also read from medick-islong the iraqi minister of stench that the biggest most devasting weapon used in fallujah was the dreaded soap bomb."the city has been rid of the smell of body odor,camel dung as well as the last 2000 years of human sh1t and piss smell in the streets" said medick-islong.

 

[JDeuce]

Let me get this straight: the same "puppet" regime the US supposedly implemented is now trying to implicate the US in wrongdoing? Are these the same regime sources who had zero credibility when they said the Iraqi elections were a success?

In other words...if they claim something that doesn't fit your agenda, they're clueless idiots. If they claim something that does, it deserves to be sung from roof tops coast to coast.

Nice.

Meanwhile, back at the hall of justice...a former US official claims Russia helped Iraq hide their nukes:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Which story makes more sense to you, stucco?

 

[xpanda]

Let me get this straight: the same "puppet" regime the US supposedly implemented is now trying to implicate the US in wrongdoing? Are these the same regime sources who had zero credibility when they said the Iraqi elections were a success?

You've kinda just done what you accuse everyone else of doing, attacking the source not the argument.

What's your take on the validity of mustard gas being used in Fallujah, since you've defended the Iraqi regime (and ipso facto their credibility) yourself?

Personally, I don't buy this story. Enough Fallujan witnesses have been on blogs and such for this story to have broken. Imagine the headline if the US used that precise same banned weapon that they invaded Iraq for in the first place?

(Oh, hey, you can use my defence if you want.)

Meanwhile, back at the hall of justice...a former US official claims Russia helped Iraq hide their nukes

You are aware that the US has acknowledged that Saddam was not trying to make nukes (masturbating to the idea is not the same as an active programme) and now you're believing that Russia helped Iraq? And why, praytell, would Newsmax have this story before the admin would call a press conference themselves to report their new findings? Why would they choose to suppress that which helps them?

Nice deflection though.

 

[gns61]

i thought we captured baghdad bob

 

[kburiss001]

Did you happen to find this report here:


http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm

 

[j-saul]

First, I really don't think the US would CHEAT using mustard gas. US, of course will cheat (why not?) but they wouldn't lend themselves to such easy detection. Idiotic! Secondly, Russia would really align themselves with Saadam vs. the world. I guess they're complete morons, too.
Please, the only ones sporting single digit IQs are the nit-wits who believe nonsense like that. Shalom RX Rabbi

 

[j-saul]

Here's what's believable. An Iraqi insurgent comes to the US to visit a few of the aforementioned skeptics (should be septics). He becomes very ill, though. First, he sees Dr. Jones. No help..Then, Dr. Goldstein. Sorry, no cure.. Distraught, goes to Dr. Al-bin-Al-Shiett (muslim). Dr. Al hands him a bucket of ****/piss and instructs the sick insurgent to stick his head in and take a big wiff. He does and he's cured! Dr. Al's diagnoses- the patient was Homesick..........Shalom, RX Rabbi

 

[JDeuce]

You've kinda just done what you accuse everyone else of doing, attacking the source not the argument.


Not really. What I did was question why some of our resident leftists would use this Iraqi source as evidence that the US used these weapons...only a few months after they had discredited the exact same source when the exact same Iraqi officials said the elections went well, the violence is dying down, the future looks bright, etc. I never said "bah...dumb source..."

Just asking...


What's your take on the validity of mustard gas being used in Fallujah,


Don't know yet. I haven't had much of a chance to read the news in the last few days, but I'll check it out. Although if this were even remotely credible, then I'd have to imagine CNN, the NY Times, LA Times, etc...would be all over the story since their main interest is to bring down this administration, not to report the news.


You are aware that the US has acknowledged that Saddam was not trying to make nukes

Our media did their best to make that claim, yeah. However, no high ranking officials in our administration have come out and said "Saddam never had any nukes and he never tried to make them..."

 

[stucco43]

considering were contaminating all of iraq with depeleted uranium I wouldnt doubt that these weapons were used...and I wouldnt doubt that the policy of military might be to use them now...just check the history of Vietnam

 

[xpanda]

You've kinda just done what you accuse everyone else of doing, attacking the source not the argument.


Not really. What I did was question why some of our resident leftists would use this Iraqi source as evidence that the US used these weapons...only a few months after they had discredited the exact same source when the exact same Iraqi officials said the elections went well, the violence is dying down, the future looks bright, etc. I never said "bah...dumb source..."

Just asking...

Nope. You didn't say 'bah, dumb source.' But you didn't address the issue, either. Instead, you attacked the poster's credibility, no? Same thing, really. As for attacking the source instead of the argument, there are plenty of good solid reasons to do so in some instances, such as when the writer is doing nothing more than trying to flame and incite emotion instead of engage in reasonable debates. Coulter and Moore come to mind.

Don't know yet. I haven't had much of a chance to read the news in the last few days, but I'll check it out. Although if this were even remotely credible, then I'd have to imagine CNN, the NY Times, LA Times, etc...would be all over the story since their main interest is to bring down this administration, not to report the news.

Another example of your acknowledgement of media bias ... which discredits them, no? You see? We all do it, peaches. Even you.

Our media did their best to make that claim, yeah. However, no high ranking officials in our administration have come out and said "Saddam never had any nukes and he never tried to make them..."

Dude. Come on, already. The US has acknowledged that Saddam did not possess WMD nor was he making WMD ... surely Russian-backed nukes qualify as WMD?

Besides, Russia backs Iran, not Iraq. To play both cards at the same time would be geopolitical suicide.

Still, and I repeat, nice deflection. I think I've seen that tactic before somewhere ....

 

[JDeuce]

But you didn't address the issue, either. Instead, you attacked the poster's credibility, no?


No. You're still completely missing my point. I said in my second post that I didn't know enough about the issue to comment, which is why I haven't.

But my point was the content and author of the article is completely irrelevant in this case. I'm just asking how someone can say a certain info source is a bastion of truth one second, and then a misguided, lying, agenda-filled group the next. It doesn't matter who the source is...could be Fox News, CNN, whatever.

With that in mind...I was asking stucco why he didn't believe the Iraqi ministry on certain issues, but did on others?


Another example of your acknowledgement of media bias ... which discredits them, no?

Not entirely, but you do have to read their work with a grain of salt and recognize which perspective they're coming from. And if you truly believe CNN and the NYT have no bias towards either side, you're kidding yourself. I'll provide you with plenty of examples if you like...


Dude. Come on, already. The US has acknowledged that Saddam did not possess WMD nor was he making WMD ...

Who, and when?

 

[xpanda]

In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.

On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said.

Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."

Not the greatest source, but the first that came up when I googled: Bush AND Cheney AND "no WMDs".

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/08/content_380248.htm

And, to add: of course I acknowledge bias in your media ... ALL of it. It's pro-Yankee bias, from where I sit. I object to the notion that your media is 'liberal' in any way shape or form, but that it protects the central tenets of US policy, both domestic and foreign, by not digging too deep or criticising too intently.

 

[JDeuce]

On a side note, conferences royally suck. And I'm going to be in them all next week, so I'm in no good mood...

XP, we've been down this road a million times on these forums. Re-read your statements. The administration never says that Saddam never had any WMDs in the first place. They're simply saying the WMDs aren't where they were thought to be. The case looks to be closed on the search in Iraq, but I don't think the case is closed on the search in neighboring countries. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now...

As far as news bias, well...I can't speak for the rest of the world, but is it really that surprising that US news outlets mainly report on US News? My guess is Canadian TV primarily reports Canadian news, British TV reports British news, and so on. If it comes across as biased, then so be it...but I don't think its much different than other world wide news outlets...

 

[SENDITIN]

I object to the notion that your media is 'liberal' in any way shape or form.

You couldn't be more wrong...unless we're back to the game playing of what your definition of a liberal is. The MAJOR news media sources are LEFT OF CENTER.....there is no question about that.

 

[xpanda]

I object to the notion that your media is 'liberal' in any way shape or form.

You couldn't be more wrong...unless we're back to the game playing of what your definition of a liberal is. The MAJOR news media sources are LEFT OF CENTER.....there is no question about that.

Anything left of Republican is left wing to you, isn't it? Your news isn't left-wing (okay, maybe CSPAN is) though it is certainly pro-Democrat, at least superficially. What it isn't is left wing.

Exception: Lou Dobbs and his 'exporting jobs to cheap overseas labour markets' blah blah blah smacks of left-wing protectionism, but that's about the only example I can come up with off the top of my head.

CNN/Time Warner donated tons of $ to Dean and Kerry campaigns last year and some, but less to Bush.

(and it's not 'my' definition of liberal, my dear. I have an objection the US just making stuff up as it goes along. if you don't mean 'liberal' don't say liberal. plenty of words out there to bastardise. your founding fathers were most likely liberal, by the way.)

JD: you're kinda getting my point ... but it's not that I'm inferring that US news only reports US news, but that American media by and large protect your nation's government. By contrast, Canadian news (all of Canadian media, in fact) are hyper-critical of our gov't, regardless - and I do mean regardless - of who is in power. This includes the publicly-owned CBC. Maybe you would have to watch it to get the idea ... do you get CBC Newsworld way down there? If you do, watch it for an hour sometime. You'd probably have to see it to understand my point.

I find American media to be mostly obnoxious, first (dum da dum! and all that other Hollywood-esque crap) and wimpy, second. And the Dan Rather affair, though it helped your side politically, will only make worse the mass spaying of your journalists.

 

[SENDITIN]

Hillary Pepper,

I didn't say the news was left wing...I said it was left of center.....where most democrats are politically.

 

[eek.]

A simple example of how deferential the mainstream US media is.

AT NO POINT in the run up to the Iraq invasion and during its aftermath did any US media organisation ask the question.

"Mr President. Is Saddam Hussein connected to 9/11?"

Not one single mainstream US news company asked him this. Not one.

--------------------------------
It was only when a poll showing that much of the US population thought Saddam was behind 9/11, which made Americans look really stupid, that he went on the record to state that there was no connection.

 

[HinesWard86]

Ummmmmm I dont know what goes on in Canada but ALL administrations are constantly scrutinized by the press. Gone are the days of conspiring to cover things up and the wink wink buddy system. Look at some of the latest administrations over the past 35 years of U.S. politics.

Nixon - Do I need to make an argument?
Ford - Relentlessly hammered for pardoning Nixon, after 3 farking years the electorate and the press still wouldn't let it go. Also constant talk about how playing football at U of M turned his brain to mush.
Carter - At first welcomed for human rights. Skewered over the Iranian hostage crisis.
Reagan - Hmmmm Iran-Contra, Star Wars, ballooning the national debt, U.S. trained troops committing massacres in Central America.
Bush - To quote James Carville "It's the economy STUPID"
Clinton - Ummmm Monica Lewinsky, no involvement in Latin American Affairs, hailed then booed for peace talks between Israel and Palestine.
Bush Jr. - What hasn't he been bashed about?

Quite frankly, I don't see your point. Media's not how it used to be when they covered up JFK's indiscretions and FDR's health. Now, media is out to make a quick buck, scoop people on stories, make names for themselves, etc. There are very few friends in the media anymore to public officials, them's the facts.