Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[js207]

"they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus,"

White phosphorous isn't actually banned - there are restrictions on how and where you use it, as indeed there are for bullets and grenades. Incidentally, the US only signed that Protocol in 2009; for the vast majority of fighting in Iraq, only Protocols I and II were in force, I, prohibiting fragments which are X-ray transparent while II relates to land mines and other booby-trap devices. III, from 2009 onwards for the US, bars their use as incendiary devices against civilian targets, as well as against combatants in close proximity to civilians, but specifically does not restrict their use for illumination or smoke production purposes, which is how the US troops were using them in Iraq anyway.

There wasn't an "Operation Shock and Awe", either - the document titled Shock and Awe was from 1996, expanding upon a phrase dating right back to Sun Tzu; the actual implementation in Iraq was a rapid decapitation attack, intended to minimise both civilian and military deaths and very successful in that respect. You acknowledge the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target in a war, why not accept that Hussein's equivalent compounds and bunkers - which were the targets in those "shock and awe" opening air strikes - were just as legitimate, rather than "terrorism"?

[leo9]

"they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus,"

White phosphorous isn't actually banned - there are restrictions on how and where you use it, as indeed there are for bullets and grenades. Incidentally, the US only signed that Protocol in 2009

Well, that make it OK, if you don't recognise the law then you're not breaking it. Same as the US won't sign up to the International Criminal Court.

III, from 2009 onwards for the US, bars their use as incendiary devices against civilian targets, as well as against combatants in close proximity to civilians, but specifically does not restrict their use for illumination or smoke production purposes, which is how the US troops were using them in Iraq anyway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ns-515345.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111600374.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=30372

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...ns-in-fallujah

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/24...g-Say-nothing-

http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=42762

There wasn't an "Operation Shock and Awe", either - the document titled Shock and Awe was from 1996, expanding upon a phrase dating right back to Sun Tzu;

It was persistently referred to as such in the news coverage at the time, but I'm quite ready to believe that this was a misnomer. It's actually more probable than that the military would have been so honest about their aims.

the actual implementation in Iraq was a rapid decapitation attack,

The city was basically levelled. "Decapitation" doesn't involve blowing someone's entire body to shreds.

intended to minimise both civilian and military deaths and very successful in that respect.

You presumably have casualty figures to back this up which contradict the known ones?

You acknowledge the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target in a war, why not accept that Hussein's equivalent compounds and bunkers - which were the targets in those "shock and awe" opening air strikes - were just as legitimate, rather than "terrorism"?

There's a very clear point at which "collateral damage" becomes intentional targetting of civilians. Taking out the Pentagon would be a military tactic. Firebombing all of Arlington in the process would be terror tactics.