GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Why didn't other countries get pissed when we used gas on civilians? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1120564)

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 03:28 PM
October 9, 1999: Newly released documents from the FBI show that agents asked
for permission to shoot any unarmed Branch
Davidians who left Mt. Carmel and
approached their armored vehicles. The
request to use illegal deadly force was denied
by FBI officials in Washington. The documents also outlined seven instances in which
FBI agents threw or launched “flash bang”
grenades at Davidians who were exiting Mt.
Carmel earlier in the standoff. The documents
containing this information were not turned
over to lawyers representing the Davidians at
the 1994 criminal trial or to Congress as it was
preparing for the 1995 hearings on the incident. Bureau officials said that the documents
were either overlooked as they responded to
previous inquiries or that such information
was not specifically sought by Congress.

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 03:31 PM
On February 28, 1993, several ATF agents
physically attacked a local television cameraman named Dan Mulloney. Mulloney was on
the scene at Mt. Carmel covering the ATF raid
for KWTX-TV. After the firefight, Mulloney
was filming the ATF agents as they were
retreating from the Davidian property. When
several ATF agents noticed what he was doing,
they screamed obscenities at him and actually
punched and kicked him while others tried to
steal his camera. Because Mulloney kept his
camera rolling during the entire episode, this
assault, battery, and attempted theft are captured on film. The evidence is thus overwhelming. It is a crime for an ordinary citizen
to punch and kick a cameraman. It is no less a
crime for ATF agents to do so, yet they were
never criminally prosecuted.
Although this incident lasted for approximately one minute, the film footage is telling
because it clearly shows that certain ATF agents
felt perfectly justified in breaking the law.
7 8

_Richard_ 09-10-2013 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794464)
Read this
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/pa395.pdf

Read under May 23rd, 1993

Almost all the ATF agents that he talked to said that they believed the initial raid on the Branch Davidians in Waco "Was a publicity stunt, the main goal of which was to improve the ATF's tarnished Image"

no bullet holes in the cars outside the complex, a door had been removed that would have been evidence.
That PDF has all the info on it, like Janet Reno saying they are beating young children when she had no proof!
She offered to resign over this, but Clinton didn't let her.
well it was a thick metal gate to the compound.. it's an important part of the whole thing

anyway, this entire situation is very interesting, especially considering ruby ridge and the eventual Oklahoma event

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19794425)
And you don't think the parents had a duty to remove their minor children from a volatile situation?
Would you go outside if they were throwing flash bang grenades at those that tried?

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19794482)
well it was a thick metal gate to the compound.. it's an important part of the whole thing

anyway, this entire situation is very interesting, especially considering ruby ridge and the eventual Oklahoma event
When the whole thing happened, I couldn't believe it, then later as the papers were made available, I read about it, it's fucked up that our police get away with this shit!

dyna mo 09-10-2013 03:46 PM
don't forget the fbi lied and covered-up use of incendiary tear gas grenades they used. first they said none were used, then 6 years later after tons of video, audio and testimony they confessed they covered up 2 incendiary tear gas grenades being used, then it was *just 3* they used............


the atf and then the fbi both mishandled this situation. and even within each of those branches of authority, there were separate factions, atf agents talking directly to koresh were not in communication with other atf agents firing weapons.

it was an absolute clusterfuck from all sides.

nevertheless, the use of a lot tear gas on children did happen.

Rochard 09-10-2013 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794487)
When the whole thing happened, I couldn't believe it, then later as the papers were made available, I read about it, it's fucked up that our police get away with this shit!
I know right, it's horrible? They went to serve a warrant on a group of people accused of molesting children. That's fucking insane!

Rochard 09-10-2013 03:52 PM
Tear gas is evil! We should invade the United States!

baddog 09-10-2013 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794486)
Would you go outside if they were throwing flash bang grenades at those that tried?
They were there for what, two months before the flash grenades were used?

dyna mo 09-10-2013 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19794512)
Tear gas is evil! We should invade the United States!

again, the point of the op is already proven by the link in it and the c&p of the author highlighting the hypocrisy.

baddog 09-10-2013 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19794510)
I know right, it's horrible? They went to serve a warrant on a group of people accused of molesting children. That's fucking insane!
The ATF was not there for child molesters. :2 cents:

_Richard_ 09-10-2013 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19794502)
don't forget the fbi lied and covered-up use of incendiary tear gas grenades they used. first they said none were used, then 6 years later after tons of video, audio and testimony they confessed they covered up 2 incendiary tear gas grenades being used, then it was *just 3* they used............


the atf and then the fbi both mishandled this situation. and even within each of those branches of authority, there were separate factions, atf agents talking directly to koresh were not in communication with other atf agents firing weapons.

it was an absolute clusterfuck from all sides.

nevertheless, the use of a lot tear gas on children did happen.
not to mention:

incendiary tear gas grenades: 'These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire.'

Rochard 09-10-2013 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19794517)
The ATF was not there for child molesters. :2 cents:
So the ATF wasn't aware of a series of articles accusing them of child molestation published in the Waco Tribune-Herald?

The original complaint started with the local Sheriff, which was investigating firearm violations and child molestation charges, but the local Sheriff wasn't large enough to handle serving a warrant at a compound with over 100 armed residents, so it was handed over to ATF... Because the ATF isn't concerned with molestation charges, the warrants were for firearms and a potential meth lab.

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19794638)
So the ATF wasn't aware of a series of articles accusing them of child molestation published in the Waco Tribune-Herald?

The original complaint started with the local Sheriff, which was investigating firearm violations and child molestation charges, but the local Sheriff wasn't large enough to handle serving a warrant at a compound with over 100 armed residents, so it was handed over to ATF... Because the ATF isn't concerned with molestation charges, the warrants were for firearms and a potential meth lab.
Seriously> Who gives a shit Rochard, don't be a retard

They were throwing flash bangs at people trying to get out of the building before they used a record amount of CS gas into the building.

They were told not to raid the building if they didn't have the element of surprise, they dis obeyed the wording on the warrant when they ignored that part.

Fuck you Rochard, I'm done with you, you are completely retarded and haven't read anything about the facts of the raid in the Cato report.

The Branch Davidians were found innocent of almost all the charges against them.

The ATF beat up a camera man and they we not charged for it, it was caught on tape. These agents should rot in hell for the deaths of those people.

You have not given in on one fact I have dug up, so at this poiint I believe you are just fucking with me. I can't believe anyone can be so fucking stupid and I don't need to waste my time trying to prove a retard wrong.

I'm putting you on ignore, this is just too important to me to waste time on trolls!

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 05:41 PM
July 30, 1992: ATF agents interview Texas
firearms dealer Henry McMahon about his
business dealings with Branch Davidian leader
David Koresh. During the interview,
McMahon telephones Koresh. Koresh tells
McMahon that if the ATF agents perceive any
legal problem, they can come to Mt. Carmel
and check his inventory and paperwork. ATF
agents decline the invitation.

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 05:45 PM
? November 1992: Producers of CBS?s 60
Minutes contact ATF officials about sexual
harassment in the agency, requesting an
interview with the director, Stephen Higgins.
ATF officials brace themselves for an unflattering report on national television.
6
? December 1992: On the basis of information developed through its investigation,
ATF concludes that there is probable cause to
believe that David Koresh is in violation of
federal firearms regulations. ATF begins to
develop a plan to search Mt. Carmel and
arrest Koresh.
1993: 60 Minutes airs a story
titled ?Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Harassment,? a devastating report on sexual
harassment within the ATF. Several female
agents describe how they were sexually
harassed by fellow agents and further
describe the retaliation they received after
they lodged complaints with their supervisors. Agent Bob Hoffman, who corroborated
one of the female agent?s complaints, tells
Mike Wallace: ?In my career with ATF, the
people that I put in jail have more honor
than the top administration in this organization. I know it?s a sad commentary, but that?s
my experience with the ATF.?
8
? January 21, 1993: ATF solicits military
assistance for its planned raid. Among other
things, the ATF requests use of the Military
Operations in Urban Terrain facility at Fort
Hood, Texas.
9
? February 25, 1993: ATF agents seek and
obtain an arrest warrant for David Koresh and
a search warrant for the Mt. Carmel complex

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19794513)
They were there for what, two months before the flash grenades were used?
It says earlier, it doesn't give exact dates

Would you want to come out of a building when federal agents are throwing grenades at you?

Probably why so many people died, they thought they could survive the CS gas, but not the grenades

dyna mo 09-10-2013 06:17 PM
awesome name the atf named it too-

operation SHOWTIME


tres apropos.

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 06:25 PM
damn, I think this puts my argument in the light that was the OP
This is straight from Committee reports from the 104th congress

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_576029&

The Government's use of CS gas in the manner it did, that is, clearly designed to incapacitate men, women and children in a confined, unventilated space, after avenues of escape had been deliberately cut off, was unconscionable; as was the cursory manner in which the Government, and especially Attorney General Reno `bought into' the conclusory and simplistic analyses that the use of CS gas posed an `acceptable' level of risk.

The fact is, while experts may--and did--differ over the precise effects of CS gas on children, or how and in what ways the use of CS gas might act as a catalyst for a fire, no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

I would go further than the report, and call for a prohibition on the use of CS gas in situations in which children or the elderly are present or are the targets.

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 06:26 PM
Anyone want to argue with that?

Vendzilla 09-10-2013 06:28 PM
The report concludes that there was opportunity for the Davidians to escape. While obviously this is true--a handful did escape the maelstrom--I conclude there was no opportunity for the vast majority of the Davidians to have any hope of escape, because of the Government's tactics the morning of the 19th of April.

Essentially, the use of the armored vehicles, methodically smashing down portions of the building, cutting off avenues of escape (for example, smashing the walls down to cover the `escape' hatch to the tunnel out of the main building), intimidated the inhabitants into seeking `safety' in the one secure part of the structure (the concrete `bunker' in the center). With massive quantities of CS gas pumped into this area, it virtually guaranteed that most inhabitants would be incapacitated; which they were, and they died in the ensuing fire because of the incapacitating effects of the CS gas and the cutting off of escape routes.

baddog 09-10-2013 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794662)
It says earlier, it doesn't give exact dates

Would you want to come out of a building when federal agents are throwing grenades at you?

Probably why so many people died, they thought they could survive the CS gas, but not the grenades
Oh, it is your contention they came there throwing flash grenades from day one. I see.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794706)
damn, I think this puts my argument in the light that was the OP
This is straight from Committee reports from the 104th congress

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_576029&

The Government's use of CS gas in the manner it did, that is, clearly designed to incapacitate men, women and children in a confined, unventilated space, after avenues of escape had been deliberately cut off, was unconscionable; as was the cursory manner in which the Government, and especially Attorney General Reno `bought into' the conclusory and simplistic analyses that the use of CS gas posed an `acceptable' level of risk.

The fact is, while experts may--and did--differ over the precise effects of CS gas on children, or how and in what ways the use of CS gas might act as a catalyst for a fire, no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

I would go further than the report, and call for a prohibition on the use of CS gas in situations in which children or the elderly are present or are the targets.
You did it again Brett... You cherry picked your information. Why didn't you link to the full report Brett?

From the full report: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...49&dbname=104&

Quote:
It is important to note, however, that there are no published studies which find that any human death has been caused by exposure to CS agent.
Then....

Quote:
While it cannot be concluded with certainty, it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels.
Now it seems like barely any tear gas hurt them:

Quote:
In reality, the concentrations of CS inside the Branch Davidian residence did not reach even these levels. The Branch Davidian residence was a poorly constructed structure which allowed for air to move in and out of the residence continuously. The air circulation carried some of the CS agent out of the building. Adding to the air circulation inside the Davidians residence that day was the fact that the FBI began to use the CEV's to ram openings into the building, ostensibly to create a means of escape for the Davidians and, later, to `deconstruct' portions of the structure in an effort to prevent the Davidians from occupying those areas of the residence. These actions greatly enhanced the circulation into the residence and further depleted the concentration of CS agent inside the residence. Additionally, on April 19th, the winds were gusting up to 25 mph.
Yet still twenty years later... Law enforcement uses tear gas when required during a stand off.

Sorry, for fifty-one days these child molesters and cop killers had a stand off with police. Eventually the police had to go in and get them. They all could have surrendered any time.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794709)
Anyone want to argue with that?
I just did. And I used the same exact report you did.

But it's a well known fact you cherry pick stats. (BTW, gas is STILL cheaper now than it was during the high point under Bush!)

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19794710)
The report concludes that there was opportunity for the Davidians to escape. While obviously this is true--a handful did escape the maelstrom--I conclude there was no opportunity for the vast majority of the Davidians to have any hope of escape, because of the Government's tactics the morning of the 19th of April.

Essentially, the use of the armored vehicles, methodically smashing down portions of the building, cutting off avenues of escape (for example, smashing the walls down to cover the `escape' hatch to the tunnel out of the main building), intimidated the inhabitants into seeking `safety' in the one secure part of the structure (the concrete `bunker' in the center). With massive quantities of CS gas pumped into this area, it virtually guaranteed that most inhabitants would be incapacitated; which they were, and they died in the ensuing fire because of the incapacitating effects of the CS gas and the cutting off of escape routes.
Brett... They could have come out at any time. You just put your hands up and walk out of any door.

And it wasn't "massive quantities of cs gas". According to report you posted, it's unlikely that any of the gas had any serious effect, and never reached toxic levels.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:21 PM
But wait, there's more!

Quote:
One of the theories forwarded to the subcommittees concerning the origin of the fire is that methylene chloride, a chemical used as a dispersant to carry the CS riot control agent injected into the Branch Davidian residence, may have ignited and started the fire. During the hearings Dr. Quintiere testified that it was his opinion that the methylene chloride in the CS agent neither caused nor contributed to the spread of the fire.
Then (same person):

Quote:
In other words, anything above 12 percent to approximately 20 percent, it would be in the flammable range, and if we had a spark or a small match and if we had conditions like that, we would have a fire propagating through the atmosphere much like a fireball. There was no observation like that made for this fire.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:22 PM
Brett, didn't you say that they couldn't leave the building?

From YOUR report:

Quote:
Throughout the morning of April 19, none of the Davidians left their residence. After the fire broke out, however, nine persons left the building.
According to the congressional report, Brett, NINE PEOPLE left the building AFTER the fire broke out.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:27 PM
Then we have the final report about the fire... The cliff notes are....

1) Davidians intentionally set the fires inside the Davidian residence.
2) CS gas did not cause the fire.
3) law enforcement agents did not intentionally set the fire
4) law enforcement agents did not unintentionally cause the fire
5) law enfrocement did not prepare for a fire (because clearly police men need to be firemen too!)
6) The Davidians could have escaped the residence even after the fire began

Here's the full version.... From the report Brett kindly linked to....

Quote:
1. The evidence indicates that some of the Davidians intentionally set the fires inside the Davidian residence. While the evidence is not dispositive, the evidence presented to the subcommittees suggests that some of the Davidians set the fires that destroyed their residence. The evidence demonstrated that three distinct fires began in three separate parts of the Branch Davidian residence within a 2 minute period on April 19. Additionally, the fire review team found that a number of accelerants were present in the structure, including gasoline, kerosene, and Coleman fuel, and that in at least one instance these accelerants contributed to the spread of the fire in a manner that indicates an intention to spread the fire.

2. The methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by the FBI did not cause the fire. There is no evidence that methylene chloride vapor in the air in the residence, present as the result of its use as a disbursant for the CS riot control agent, caused the outbreak of the fire. The evidence presented to the subcommittees indicated that for the methylene chloride to have burned some spark must have ignited the methylene chloride vapor and that a fireball would have resulted. Because no fireball was observed until well after the fire had become established, the subcommittees conclude that methylene chloride did not cause the fire.

3. The subcommittees conclude that Federal law enforcement agents did not intentionally set the fire. The evidence before the subcommittees clearly demonstrates that no fire began at or near the time when any of the combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI came into contact with the structure. Had a flamethrower or similar device been installed on one of the CEV's and used to start the fire its use would have been observable in the infrared videotape of the fire. No such use is recorded on the that videotape. Accordingly, the subcommittees conclude that the FBI did not use any of the CEV's intentionally to cause the fire.

4. The subcommittees conclude that Federal law enforcement agents did not unintentionally cause the fire. The evidence presented to the subcommittees suggests that it is highly unlikely that Federal law enforcement officials unintentionally caused the fires to occur. The evidence demonstrates that the fires broke out at points in time when no vehicle used by the FBI was in contact with the structure or had been in contact with the structure immediately prior to those points. Because this would have been the case had these vehicles inadvertently caused the fires to break out by disturbing flammable materials inside the Davidian residence, the subcommittees conclude that it is highly unlikely that the vehicles inadvertently caused the fires to occur.

5. The FBI should have made better preparations to fight the fire. While it may have been too dangerous to fight the fire when it initially erupted, it remains unknown as to whether it might have been safe for fire fighters to approach the building at some point earlier than the half hour later when they were allowed access. While fire fighting efforts might not have extinguished the fire, they could have delayed the spread of the fire or provided additional safe means of escape for some of the Davidians. It also does not appear as though the FBI considered obtaining armored fire-fighting vehicles from the military. In any event, given the government's strong belief that a fire might take place, and its action in summoning fire fighting units to the scene, the subcommittees conclude that the FBI should have made better provision for the presence of fire fighting equipment as part of its overall plan to end the standoff.

6. The Davidians could have escaped the residence even after the fire began. After the fire broke out on April 19, nine persons left the Davidian residence. This indicates that at least some opportunity existed for the Davidians to safely leave the structure had they wanted to do so. As one person left the structure 21 minutes after the outbreak of the first fire, some means of escape from the residence existed for a significant period of time after the fire broke out. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that many of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure. Additionally, the location of the bodies of the Davidians indicates that few of the Davidians actually attempted to escape the building. In light of this evidence, the subcommittees conclude that there was a period of time after the fires began within which the Davidians could have escaped the residence.
So basically three pages of Brett complaining about police using CS gas on children had nothing to do with their deaths....

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:30 PM
Six year old Melissa died in the fire Brett.... The fire the Branch Davidians set:

Quote:
Between March 23 and April 12, negotiations continued but no one left the compound. During that period, the FBI held a conversation with a 6-year-old girl who identified herself as Melissa Morrison. The FBI negotiator asked Melissa whether she would like to leave the compound. She replied in the affirmative. The FBI negotiator asked her why she did not leave. Her response was that she could not leave because `David won't let me.' Melissa died in the fire.
Well at least she wasn't stabbed in the chest, right?

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19791044)
Let me remind everyone that no illegal guns were found after the buildings burned down
Really Brett? Seems the Congressional report you linked up says otherwise:

Quote:
After the siege, the Texas Rangers conducted an extensive search of the Branch Davidian compound. They discovered 48 illegal machine guns, seven illegal explosives of various types, nine illegal silencers and over 200,000 rounds of ammunition.
LOL.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:33 PM
Brett, I thought you said they couldn't leave? (I know I covered this already but...)

Quote:
between February 28 and March 3 twenty-one children were allowed to leave....

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:34 PM
Couldn't leave because they might have been shot right?

Quote:
Because the FBI decided not to fire any shots during the standoff, the Davidians walked outside of the building on several occasions to smoke cigarettes, empty chamber pots, feed chickens and gather water from rain water runoff.
Again, that is a direct quote from the report you linked up.

Rochard 09-10-2013 10:36 PM
Congressional report seems to believe that the fire wasn't started by the CS gas or by law enforcement:

Quote:
There is no doubt that the Branch Davidians started the fire. We disagree with the conclusion of the majority report which states that the evidence concerning the origin of the fire is not dispositive. The majority report ignores evidence contained in the arson report which proved three separate ignition points within the compound and conclusively found that chemical accelerants were placed throughout the compound. Additionally, there was eyewitness testimony as well as film footage which chronicled the rapid spreading of the blaze. Moreover, the clothes of surviving Davidians who escaped the compound were laced with gasoline and other flammable materials. Finally, and most poignantly, several surviving Davidians admitted that those within the compound had started the blaze. These statements are supported by recorded statements in which voices are heard asking about the location and timing of fuel pouring and lighting activities. Additionally, it should be noted that an examination of the vehicles involved inserting tear gas was conducted. These vehicles did not have flame throwing equipment and were not of the type that could have been equipped with flamethrowing equipment. All evidence clearly indicates that the fire which destroyed the Branch Davidian compound on April 19 was ignited by individuals inside the compound.

Jel 09-11-2013 08:02 AM
I'm taking a wild stab in the dark that Rochard knows Vendzilla's real name is Brett. He therefore wins the argument.

Rochard 09-11-2013 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jel (Post 19795272)
I'm taking a wild stab in the dark that Rochard knows Vendzilla's real name is Brett. He therefore wins the argument.
Exactly. And thus, I am a winner. Or a man with a small penis. Doesn't matter to me.

I like to like to debate. The bullshit that gets slung around here is comical. The number rule of GFY is that you don't say anything unless it is 100% correct and you had better bring proof, and you will get ripped to shreds.

Brett - excuse me, Vendzilla - can't debate to save his soul. He takes a single quote from one of his goofy websites ("Oil production is down on public land under Obama") and accepts it as fact when the direct opposite is true (domestic oil production is up).

Rochard 09-11-2013 05:51 PM
So Vendzilla has no response huh?

baddog 09-11-2013 06:45 PM
Didn't he put you on ignore?

VanDahl 09-11-2013 07:08 PM
Apparently, y'all forget about the use of mustard gas and napalm in the viet jam crisis. Also our govt allowed the use of ddt for decades. As tragic as the Syria situation is, this kinda thing goes on alot. In Africa it may not be gas, but it's genocide just the same.

Vendzilla 09-11-2013 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanDahl (Post 19796201)
Apparently, y'all forget about the use of mustard gas and napalm in the viet jam crisis. Also our govt allowed the use of ddt for decades. As tragic as the Syria situation is, this kinda thing goes on alot. In Africa it may not be gas, but it's genocide just the same.
Yeah, I have a friend that suffers from agent orange exposure, not good

candyflip 09-12-2013 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19790982)
I'm stunned the stupidity here.
This statement is a hoot, coming from you. :1orglaugh

theking 09-12-2013 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 19796652)
This statement is a hoot, coming from you. :1orglaugh
He is a genius compared to you...thief.

Rochard 09-12-2013 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19796190)
Didn't he put you on ignore?
Well, once he pointed out a congressional report that said the direct opposite of everything he said, what could he do?

Rochard 09-12-2013 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 19796652)
This statement is a hoot, coming from you. :1orglaugh
Well, I'm open to discussion.

How I am wrong?

I am pretty confident tear gas isn't flammable. It's wikipedia entry doesn't say it's flammable; That's a pretty important quality to have so if it was flammable I am pretty confident it would have been mentioned. I've been through the gas chamber in boot camp; I'm pretty confident they had to burn it to activate it. I'm also pretty sure if it was flammable it wouldn't be used by all law enforcement across the US.

They did a year long investigation, and they were pretty confident they had illegal weapons. The warrants the ATF had were valid, and it turns out they were correct, they did have illegal weapons, although once they shot and killed police officers the firearms violations were minor.

This all boils down to how you view our government. If you view our government as over bearing and interfering in your life, then you most likely will want to believe that this raid was not required and that the ATF is liable for the deaths of dozens of innocent people. If you don't spend your life fighting local law enforcement over petty stupid shit, then you see it as a local group who had illegal machine guns and the police went to take care of it.

Clearly we see which side Vendzilla is on.

dyna mo 09-12-2013 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanDahl (Post 19796201)
Apparently, y'all forget about the use of mustard gas and napalm in the viet jam crisis. Also our govt allowed the use of ddt for decades. As tragic as the Syria situation is, this kinda thing goes on alot. In Africa it may not be gas, but it's genocide just the same.
i didn't. in fact, i posted here a couple days ago info and links about usa using chem weapons in iraq and afghanistan the mark77 firebomb + white phosporous.


Quote:
Both the UK and US authorities now admit that the napalm-type weapon known as the ?MK77 firebomb? was used during the invasion of Iraq. This section contains the briefing and press releases which the Iraq Analysis Group has produced on the topic, plus links to evidence of MK77 use during the continuing conflict. We also include information about the controversial weapon White Phosphorus.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/publications/232

pimpmaster9000 09-12-2013 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19790932)
You are comparing tear gas to sarin gas? Seriously?
oh I have pulled out dozens of unconscious civilians from an airplane hangar where a canister of police gas was thrown in as a prank by some complete moron...they got disoriented and vented and fell to the floor and when we opened the big hangar doors it was hell on earth inside...I barely made it out during the first go because the concentration was so high...if we did not hear them screaming inside, some would have probably died...

so no its not sarin, but I'm a big strong mother fucker and I barely made it out after just 20 seconds...

Rochard 09-12-2013 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanDahl (Post 19796201)
Apparently, y'all forget about the use of mustard gas and napalm in the viet jam crisis. Also our govt allowed the use of ddt for decades. As tragic as the Syria situation is, this kinda thing goes on alot. In Africa it may not be gas, but it's genocide just the same.
I know nothing about mustard gas in Vietnam.

I know about napalm, but that's not considered illegal. From what little I understand about napalm is that it's freaking nasty... I think it should be banned.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19797017)
i didn't. in fact, i posted here a couple days ago info and links about usa using chem weapons in iraq and afghanistan the mark77 firebomb + white phosporous.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/publications/232
Your link talks about napalm, which is legal, and is used by the US.

Vendzilla 09-13-2013 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 19797354)
oh I have pulled out dozens of unconscious civilians from an airplane hangar where a canister of police gas was thrown in as a prank by some complete moron...they got disoriented and vented and fell to the floor and when we opened the big hangar doors it was hell on earth inside...I barely made it out during the first go because the concentration was so high...if we did not hear them screaming inside, some would have probably died...

so no its not sarin, but I'm a big strong mother fucker and I barely made it out after just 20 seconds...
People that have gone thru the military and had gas training don't get told that it's a light gas they are getting.
The committee in congress concluded that what they did in Waco was wrong, very wrong.
Most got trapped that died, which they believe some of the children were killed out of mercy, like the 3 year old that Rochard keeps going on about. I saw the autopsy picture of that kid, I wouldn't even post it here, it's pretty bad.

pimpmaster9000 09-13-2013 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19798250)
People that have gone thru the military and had gas training don't get told that it's a light gas they are getting.
.
we thought it was a mechanical fire and inhaled the smoke without thinking, nobody knew or expected tear gas...the guys in the hangar ran towards it to see what it was, they first thought it was a skydiving flair or just an emergency smoke kind of thing...you do not realize it is tear gas but breathe more and more in panic just like I did...man I have been in a few public protests and got tear gas used against me in the open, but releasing this stuff inside buildings is attempted murder at least...

2MuchMark 09-13-2013 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19790924)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/m...ill-civilians/

One point that needs to be made, but rarely if ever mentioned, is that in the supposed rationale for US attack on Syria to avenge/prevent claimed civilian deaths by government gas attacks, the US government itself has used similar weapons openly as recently as the FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the spring of 1993.

76 men, women and children died in this senseless military style assault which used highly lethal military CS gas as a primary weapon. CS is not a nerve agent and it doesn’t in normal concentrations cause immediate death. But it is highly flammable, persistent and designed to incapacitate targets by causing massive biological reactions including inability to breathe, massive tearing in the eyes, nose bleeds, etc.

The Davidians were totally surrounded, posed no threat to others, and responded with weapons fire only after the ATF/FBI attacked with military style firearms. After the initial government assault was repelled, and after a long standoff, an impatient President Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an all-out military assault on the compound, despite the fact that the only legal justification was a single warrant for David Koresh on unproven charges. The presence of innocent group members was ignored, nor was there any planning for medical aid or fire suppression.

The rest is history. Special military tanks were used to puncture compound walls and insert large quantities of CS gas. CS gas grenades were used from military stores along with 2 metal CS pyrotechnic M651E1 shells. Other pyrotechnic devices and flammable rounds were also fired into the buildings despite known dangers of CS gas ignition and chemical changes to the CS in fires making it even more deadly.

Wikipedia has more details. The video “Rules of Engagement” makes it clear that this was a deliberate effort to kill those inside.

In the run up to the Iraq invasion and now with Syria, United States officials loudly wailed about these regimes “killing civilians” with poison gas. Despite lack of hard evidence for such use in these countries, there is no doubt that President Clinton and Reno approved this exact same tactic.


While some victims were shot, most died from burns or asphyxiation as a result of the CS gas and the subsequent firestorm created when it was ignited deliberately.

So precedent is clear: the US Empire can use poison gas against peaceful religious dissenters when they do not immediately surrender to heavily armed police forces using military weapons. This is lied about, rationalized and ultimately forgotten, with the dead victims being blamed for their “suicidal actions.”


Hi Vendzilla,

CS is Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile, or Tear Gas and is used for crowd control. It's visible and looks yellow. It causes tears, pain and sometimes even blindness. Dangerous and bad for you but generally considered non-lethal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas

Sarin gas is considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It's colorless and odourless and is extremely lethal even at very low concentrations. It kills you in less than 1 minute. If you inhale it, you suffocate because it causes muscle paralysis in your lungs. The attack in Syria was intentional and killed over 1000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

President Clinton did not order an "all-out military assault". The 51 day standoff ended when the FBI used tear gas to get the Davidians's out. A FIRE killed 76 or so people, not the gas. The intention was to end the standoff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

Comparing that actions of Clinton during Waco to Assad (or whoever is responsible for the gas attacks) in Syria way off base.

Instead of trying to blame Clinton for anything close to what is going on now, consider Ronald Reagan. He & Rumsfeld sold Chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran - Iraq war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...211;Ira q_war

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/i...n_iraq_war.jpg

dyna mo 09-13-2013 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19797392)




Your link talks about napalm, which is legal, and is used by the US.
you don't know how to read. it's not napalm, the link states that and that's not even the point. my point was it was used in iraq, that's 50 years after viet nam and i had even posted info about us lying about it.



either way, i get it. you think gassing children is ok if the ends justify it.

but i don't give a shit if you think that or not, as i've told you before, i'm not here to change your mind.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123