Hmmm, well let's see I'm not the one linking sources like Al Jazeera that are making up weapons, am I? So if you want to claim I'm not credible then you're an incredible hypocrite, it's not the first time you've rushed to post crap without even bothering to check it's credibility and I doubt it'll be the last.<br><br>My intelligence was simply the UN reports on Iraq, reports that when they had left in the 90's stated Iraq still had chemical weapons, reports that absolutely no one, most notably yourself, had answered where they went to in the intermediate time period. In some of the UN quarterlies when the inspectors when back, Blix mentioned they had found some quantities of mustard gas. Even old Blix himself stated until mid '03 that he believed they still had the weapons, I suppose now he's a liar in your eyes? Considering Iraq managed to continue biological research for 4 years under UN inspections in the '90's before being caught it's not such a stretch to consider they might have had the inspectors fooled.<br><br>

D'oh!<br>And here I thought you'd said marshmallows s water balloons.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Incendiary devices are NOT (repeat NOT) to be used<br>as anti-personnel weapons.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Actually I believe it's specifically directed that incendiaries are not to be purposefully used against civilians (i.e. the firebombing of Dresden in WWII):<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by 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 a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>The language itself is pretty sparse, essentially it's interpreted as "don't shoot the stuff at civilians purposefully, but go ahead and light up your enemy."<br><br>The United States actually did not sign this protocol, mainly because everyone who did basically ignores it anyway.<br><br>

<br>Next time you do a web search, and the story<br>is printed in Al Jeezeer {sp?) read it, and do <br>a further search for the ORIGINAL source.<br><br>The first few time I did that, I steeled myself<br>expecting it to be bias and twisted etc, etc.<br><br>Look for yourself. Most of their stories are <br>reprinted from other sources (in this particular<br>case, from Italy*) and every time I took the<br>time to compare them side-by-side, they are<br>printed word-for-word, without comment or<br>embellishment. (No bold type, or underlining<br>or whatever) They're just another news source.<br><br>*btw, that story out of Italy was from that<br>Italian woman that had been captured & held, <br>a couple of months ago, and when the Italians <br>arranged for he release, she was fired upon and <br>her rescuer killed. That was the story she was<br>carrying at the time.<br><br><br><br>

The SLORC is the Burmese government. They've been renamed since the '90's I believe, but it's still the same military dictatorship.<br><br>Anyone who truly considers themselves a humanitarian will make it their business to find out as much as possible about Burma, who's people have been enslaved by a military government since the early 60's.<br><br>They've been part of probably one of the worst humanitarian disasters in history, but never seem to get much attention unfortunately.<br><br>I came into knowlege about Burma in college, when I was studying Bando, which is a style of karate based on the movement of animals that came out of Burma in the 40's during WWII. Our teacher made us study up on Burma, and it just stuck with me.<br><br>I know being someone that seems to care a lot about the afflicted you'll be interested, so please check out the Free Burma website! :)<br><br>**edit- Bando is NOT Karate, my teacher would kill me for saying that! It's the offical Burmese fighting system! :P<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SgtBaxter on 11/16/05 06:07 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

Regardless, if they simply respew incorrect information they're not a credible source. A credible news source will check for errors like that, or if they find it later, post retractions.<br><br>Granted, they might have posted corrections, I haven't looked to check.<br><br>

I agree, and I have no doubt that they cherry pick <br>their stories to slant the information as a whole.<br><br>...but I can't say for certain,, since I neither subscribe <br>to nor make it habit of reading the paper itself, I've <br>only read the occasional link, and read it out of curiosity.<br><br><br><br>

I understand fighting styles, as opposed to the TV Type <br>shouting, board-breaking, style of popularly called "Karate"<br><br>I helped one of my best friends choose the style he's<br>since mastered. AikiJujitsu.<br><br>But it truth I'm not, nor have never claimed to be a<br>Humanitarian. I'm an Environmentalist. The two are<br>often at odds with each other.<br><br>I'd just never heard about the human right abuses in Burma.<br>I will do some reading on the subject, thanx for bringing it <br>to my attention.<br><br><br>

Yup,(almost forgot the comma ) ignore the cbc, bbc, all the OTHER links I provided, over something that minute. Regardless it is and was correct in it's content. (how about some correction for reporting marconi balloon inflators as bio-weapons labs) <br><br><br>Now since you mention blix and the U.N.<br><br>Blix says Iraq war illegal  <br>Bernard Hibbitts at 3/5/2004 08:18:53 AM<br><br>Hans Blix, the former chief UN arms inspector in Iraq and an international lawyer by training, told the UK Independent Friday that he believed the 2003 war against Iraq was illegal. He rejected arguments made by the British and American governments that the war in Iraq was authorized by Saddam Hussein's breach of UN resolutions prior to 1441 (under which the Security Council threatened Iraq with "serious consequences") made an explicit second Security Council resolution condoning the use of force unnecessary. "I don't buy the argument that the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions," he said. In any event, the US and UK had no right to act alone: "It's the security council that is party to the ceasefire [at the end of the Gulf War], not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has the ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation". The Independent has more. Blix's new book about his UN work, entitled Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, is due to be published tomorrow. Excerpts will be available on the UK Guardian's website<br><br>http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_03_05_indexarch.htm#107849273394501690<br><br><br>Iraq war illegal, says Annan<br><br>The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."<p><hr></blockquote><p>One last link here<br><br>http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timel...areas=deception<br><br>The admin. knew they would not find what they said was there and hence the topic of this thread was ........<br><br>Documents don't forge themselves. <br><br><br>