Incinerating Iraqis.

Why Why Why?

It's one of the oldest tricks in the military playbook, mass destruction begets fear at it's highest. No matter how many civilians and innocents are caught up in such torturing deaths and agonizing injuries, it's the leftover effect on the minds of the population that a military seeks. A super power plants mind controlling fear.

Thanks for posting this Winston.

Everyone needs to know about this, the Bush culture of cruelty.

" 'Cogito ergo spud' -I think therefore I yam." -- A LaCarte (Denny's hometown menu circa 199?)
"I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam!" -- Popeye the Sailor Spud (apologies to Segar)


KT

Napalm? The Al Qaeda formula Jet fuel and Human bodies.

Actually Marine, Iraq had no part in 9-11.

Perhaps you are thinking of Osama Bin Forgotten.

Coalition fatalities in Iraq

http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html

"This is probably the most interesting display of this information I've seen yet. Instead of a long list by date, or a scrolling counter, it starts at the beginning of the war and shows the deaths on a map of Iraq as time passes. Note, it also makes a little noise for each death, which might get annoying to you cubemates if you play this at work. I'd like to see this across other data sets as well, including rebuilding." (from Will-clicked)

KT

(And to the individual who put up that picture):

E PLURIBUS ANUM !

Quite a site, KT. I winced with every sound. And it was very interesting to read
the author's methodology, etc.

I see nothing wrong with using this type of ordnance you are discussing on enemy combatants; I do, however, see a great deal wrong with burning alive civilians engaged in a peaceful life and in a surprise attack. If you don't perceive the difference then we don't really have much to talk about.

I hear a great deal of condemnation coming from you folks of the United States military for using ordanance designed to kill enemies of the United States and lesson the potential the enemies of the United States will have to kill American troops.

I haven't seen anything condemning the use of a jet aircraft laden with a full load of fuel to incinerate your fellow citizens. Citizens who in pursuit of nothing more than a peaceful civilian life. People who got up this morning to go to work, just like you did, and were murdered for the reason of being an American.

If you consider being outraged that these people murdered almost 3,000 of you fellow citizens to be over the top, well, to put it bluntly, tough.

The Iraqi people are not our enemy, neither is their military. I thought the enemy was terrorism, which is a strange enemy, if you ask me. It’s like having nuclear war be your enemy. As for the rebels and outsiders who are helping them, how do you use napalm on people who are attacking and trying to kill you without hurting innocent people and civilians? It seems as though it would be like using napalm in a street riot!

More than 3,000 American civilians died on 9/11, but how many Iraqi civilians have died since this conflict started – or since the first Gulf War, when we first started killing Iraqis?

No one here is in any way condoning or making light of what happened on 9/11. The CFO of the company I worked for died that day when he went to a business meeting at an investment banking firm. He left a wife and two small children. The sight of people jumping out of the windows to avoid being burned to death was a horror that I shall never forget. I cried in church the following Sunday when they played “America the Beautiful.” Many Americans cried. How do you get from that time of unity and compassion to now where division and hostility rule the day? I say – poor leadership, very poor leadership.

I'm not going into the discussion why we invaded Iraq, I just say if someone is predisposed to believe Bush lied they think it was wrong, if someone thinks it was a failure in intelligence they think it was right.

I have not missed a day thinking about what happen on the 11th of September, 2001. I knew no one personally who died in the attack but to see Americans dying for the only reason of being an American is etched into my memory and resolve never to see it happen again.

When I see you folks wanting us to lighten up on the people who supported and celebrated that act I just don't have much patience. I spent 30 years of my life prepared to do what ever it took to see the United States safe from her enemies, I just don't have much patience with anyone who wants me to be soft on anyone identified as an enemy.

I grew up in Southeastern Michigan. My family was not particularly military-oriented. I had an uncle who served in WWII and a cousin who served in Vietnam. My grandparents emigrated from Canada. My grandfather was a small farmer and tool and die maker. My dad was an autoworker and many members of my family were UAW members, including myself at one time. My dad distrusted the U.S. government immensely.

I don't know anything about your family background except that you live in Texas. It's obvious to me that you have a totally different mindset than I do about the United States and what it means to be an American. You also see things as more black and white than I do.

I don't see all the enemies of the U.S. as out there. To me, it's not so clear who the bad and the good guys are. At times - like now, I see our own government as the enemy of the good of the United States.

To me, America is based on an ideal and when I see that we are not living up to that ideal, I think it is US who are failing the country. It's no outsider's fault.

Well Beamer, my Grandparents were so mistrustful of the government they both refused to get a social security number or to keep their money in a bank. My Dad was a mill worker and a Union man and the only folks who were career military was an Uncle who spent 30 years in the Army and a Cousin who died in a burning aircraft while pursuing a career in the Air Force.

I didn't start out with the intention to make a career in the Marines, it just seem to work out best for me and my family that way.

I've never forgotten what the anti-war movement did to Hubert Humphrey at the 1968 democratic convention and believe their actions were a monumental mistake which had serious repercusions upon the fate of this nation which continue to this day.

And I probably am an opinionated old dinosaur who trys to see things as black and white. Life is much easier that way.

Marine, I have never, ever seen anything on this board where anyone indicated that they were not furious about what happened on 9/11. To see you suggest otherwise astounds me.

I think perhaps the problem here is the definition of who is the enemy.

And I, for one (and like most, if not all, on this board) have expressed nothing but gratitude for those who have fought and trained to protect our country. Yea, we may have big problems with Bushco and this war, but we have never voiced distain for the men and woman who are serving- or who have served in the past.

No one has asked you to "lighten up" on those responsible for 9/11 or those who celebrated it.

Marine,

Didn't the USA say they wouldn't use napalm in the '80's some time? Just a question...

As for the outrage- I doubt that anyone would not be outraged at 9/11. However, if we said we wouldn't use napalm any more, and we used it- that would be an outrage, too.

Now, if we never said that, then it becomes what it is: all's fair in love and WAR!

Question time:

Were you in Vietnam? Did you really like Humphrey or something? What repercussions do you think resulted from that 68 convention that are still being felt?

I'm 52 and female, so I was old enough for Vietnam but didn't go. I was anti-war. I saw Humphrey as a good man who was caught in difficult situation. I thought the protesting was good in many ways. However, I think many male college kids may have felt guilty about not going to Vietnam and were more stridently anti-war than others because of it.

I think many Vietnam-era people today are caught up in all this striving to accumulate things and may be somewhat embarrassed by their youthful experimenting with drugs and sex and therefore have done 180s and are trying to be all virtuous today (or self-righteous).

Beamer is trying to cool things off :P

Well, I'm trying to understand someone who seems very different than me but whom I find interesting.

When I joined the Marines in 1970 the recruiter promised me I would be in Vietnam within 12 months. The recruiter was wrong, it was 18 months before I got orders for Vietnam and about two weeks before I was due to report to the 3rd MARDIV I got a change in my orders to go to 2nd MARDIV. The difference is 3rd MARDIV was in Vietnam and 2nd MARDIV was in North Carlolina. No, I did not go to Vietnam, but I got to experience a couple of times what Vietnam vets got from the anti-war people. And virtually all of my superiors and peers went to Vietnam.

Do I have a story about Hubert Humphrey for you. I was 18 years old, not old enough to vote but I was dating a young lady whose Daddy was the county chairman for the democtratic party in Smith County Texas. He was also a delegate to the Chicago convention and ran Humphrey's campaign in Smith County. This was the first political election where I was passionate about a candidate and was thoroughly disgusted that Nixon beat him.

I don't know if you remember what happened in Chicago, you would have been 14 or 15 and if you were like me at that age I just didn't pay that much attention to things unless it was directly effecting me. I'll remind those who don't remember, the anti-war movement disrupted the convention, made the democrats look like a bunch of war mongers, and handed the election to Richard Nixon. My girlfriends Daddy came back with a story that if I had not heard it first hand I would have found it hard to believe. He said a number of Dixiecrats backed the antiwar movement as a means of revenging LBJ and Hubert Humphrey's getting the Civil Rights Acts passed.

I never did drugs and the sexual revolution by-passed East Texas so no 180 here. The only thing I did wrong was stay drunk from sometime in 1971 until September of 1973 and have not touched a drop of liquor since.

And Pie, you're right, no apology.

This author's opinion in this article below, explains the fear factor that the BushCons use both here in the states and especially Iraq to promote the fear factor among all the 'weaker' nations. This is an opinion, but it holds powerful meanings that can not be ignored and only objected to by those who support this BushCo regime. This is not about how Americans once held their heads proudly high but how low our corrupt lying govt has become who kills those who gets in it's profiteering crusading way.


[Fallujah was fire bombed and destroyed by US forces. In violation of International Law and the Geneva Conventions, US forces used a modern form of napalm bombs (MK-77 Mod 5), which ignite on impact, to attack the civilian population there. According to the Red Cross, more than 6,000 innocent civilians (men, women and children) have been killed, and the rest of the people are now displaced refugees. A war crime termed "collective punishment," designed to instil fear in the Iraqi population, passed with complete silence in Western capitals.]


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/05...0305hassan.html


Fear: A political tool

By Ghali Hassan


May 3, 2005—The rise of the politics of fear has become central to the US imperial agenda. In order to sell its "war on terror" and the war on Iraq, the Bush administration turned to fear to manipulate the public.

Just before the war on Iraq, US and British politicians played on people's fear of an imagined enemy and fabricated an "imminent threat" to justify a war of aggression against a defenceless nation. Fear is the instrument of those in power to manufacture consent in order to imperil civil liberties and pursue rejected policy.

The September 11 (9/11) attacks on the US were an "opportunity" used to cultivate fear and advance US imperial agenda. "The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it," Richard Clarke, Bush administration's counter-terrorism expert told CBS 60 minutes on March 21, 2004. A false 'link' was established between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks and used wickedly to play on people's fear.

Fear played an important role during the US election campaign. The Bush administration uses fear to frighten the population into total obedience and to maintain political power. In fact, the public is manipulated to accept just anything. The victims of this fear mongering are the "others." A survey conducted by Cornell University found that nearly half of the Americans who responded to the survey say the US should 'restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans.' In the recent Australian election, the situation was not much different from that in the US.

Lie after lie has been fabricated and promoted by warmongers and deceptive mainstream media outlets in order to convince the public that their fear is linked to a threat posed by Iraq. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, most American citizens bought the lies of the Bush administration and not only succumbed to the restriction on their civil liberties, but also supported a criminal war against the people of Iraq.

The war on Iraq is also used as an instrument of fear to bully other nations into submission to the US imperialist agenda. Both, the US and the British governments have publicly stated that the war on Iraq was "a lesson" to other defenceless nations. In other words, we are violent and we will use violence to get what we want.

"Such is the viciousness that lies behind the façade of the British [and US] foreign policy," writes Mark Curtis, Director of the World Development Movement. Sadly, people in the West accepted the violence of their own governments with almost no resistance to the crimes committed in their name.

"American behaviour and self-perceptions reveal the ease with which a civilized country [US] can engage in large-scale killing of innocent civilians without public discussion," wrote Jeffery Sachs, Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

It is a moral failure that the crimes against the Iraqi people continue to pass with complete silence in most Western countries, as if the Iraqi people are "unpeople."


An imaginary enemy has to be constructed in order to manipulate the population into supporting ongoing acts of aggression. From the making of Osama bin Laden to the CIA "favourite terrorists" and warlords in Afghanistan, bogeymen and 'phantom terrorists' are created to provide pretext for fear. They remain more useful alive than dead. The phantom of "Al-Zarqawi" is a CIA-created legend designed to divide Iraqi religious and political factions and justify a prolonged occupation. The myth is promoted in Western mainstream media on daily basis. Iraqi sources suggest that most terrorist acts attributed to Al-Zarqawi were actually carried out by secret US and Israeli agents.

US intelligence agents in Iraq have admitted that they are paying people off to make up stories about Al-Zarqawi to create sectarian divisions among the Iraqis: "We were basically paying up to $US10,000 (A$13,000) a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about the fundamentalist anti-Shiite Al-Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," one agent said:

As a result of US war and Occupation, fear is widespread in Iraq today, particularly among women and children who continue to be humiliated and abused in violent house-to-house searches being conducted by US forces. The ceaseless aerial bombings of Iraq since 1991 war have traumatized and installed fear among Iraqi women and children.




[Fallujah was fire bombed and destroyed by US forces. In violation of International Law and the Geneva Conventions, US forces used a modern form of napalm bombs (MK-77 Mod 5), which ignite on impact, to attack the civilian population there. According to the Red Cross, more than 6,000 innocent civilians (men, women and children) have been killed, and the rest of the people are now displaced refugees. A war crime termed "collective punishment," designed to instil fear in the Iraqi population, passed with complete silence in Western capitals.]

all off-topic and derisive posts (and replies to derisive posts) have been removed

Did you forget who won? it's not been that long ago just 37 years. The old Democratic party died at that convention. What happened in Chicago in August of 1968 changed our political and cultural institutions, and so it shaped our current political and cultural life. If we understand Chicago '68 we will understand not only a major event in our history but we will also better understand who we are now.

For the Democratic party, Chicago '68 doomed the candidacy of Hubert Humphrey. For the Left, Chicago '68 hastened the demise of SDS and intensified the revolutionary fervor that would spawn street violence and bombings. For the media, Chicago '68 created a deep suspicion of the state.

Convention Week

August 22, Thursday: Dean Johnson, a seventeen-year-old Sioux Indian from South Dakota, is shot dead by Chicago police on Wells Street. Police say he pulled a gun. A memorial march is held later in the day.

August 23, Friday: At the Civic Center plaza (located in the Loop and now known as the Daley Center) the Yippies nominate their presidential contender—Pigasus the pig. Seven Yippies and the pig are arrested.

Almost 6,000 National Guardsman are mobilized and practice riot-control drills. Special police platoons do the same.

August 24, Saturday: MOBE's marshal training sessions continue in Lincoln Park. Karate, snake dancing, and crowd protection techniques are practiced. Women Strike for Peace holds a women-only picket at the Hilton Hotel, where many delegates are staying. At the 11 PM curfew, poet Allan Ginsberg, chanting, and musician Ed Sanders lead people out of the park.

August 25, Sunday: MOBE's "Meet the Delegates" march gathers 800 protesters in Grant Park across from the Hilton Hotel. The Festival of Life, in Lincoln Park, opens with music. 5,000 hear the MC-5 and local bands play. Police refuse to allow a flatbed truck to be brought in as a stage. A fracas breaks out in which several are arrested and others are clubbed. Police reinforcements arrive.

At the 11 PM curfew, most of the crowd, now numbering around 2,000, leave the park ahead of a police sweep and congregate between Stockton Drive and Clark Street. The police line then moves into the crowd, pushing it into the street. Many are clubbed, reporters and photographers included. The crowd disperses into the Old Town area, where the battles continue.

August 26, Monday: In the early morning, Tom Hayden is among those arrested. 1,000 protesters march towards police headquarters at 11th and State. Dozens of officers surround the building. The march turns north to Grant Park, swarming the General Logan statue. Police react by clearing the hill and the statue.

At the Amphitheatre, Mayor Daley formally opens the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

As the curfew approaches, some in Lincoln Park build a barricade against the police line to the east. About 1,000 remain in the park after 11 PM. A police car noses into the barricade and is pelted by rocks. Police move in with tear gas. Like Sunday night, street violence ensues. But it is worse. Some area residents are pulled off their porches and clubbed. More reporters are attacked this night than at any other time during the week.

August 27, Tuesday: At 1 PM 200 members of the American Friends Service Committee and other pacifist groups leave a near-northside church to march to the Amphitheatre. Joined by others along their route, the marchers eventually number about 1,000. The police stop the march at 39th and Halstead, about half-a-mile north of the Amphitheatre. The marchers set up a picket line and remain in place until 10 AM the next morning. They are then ordered to disperse and 30 resisters are arrested. This is the only march of Convention Week that gets anywhere near the Amphitheatre—it also gets virtually no publicity.

About 7 PM Black Panther Party Chairman Bobby Seale speaks in Lincoln Park. He urges people to defend themselves by any means necessary if attacked by the police.

An "Unbirthday Party for LBJ" convenes at the Chicago Coliseum. Performers and speakers include Ed Sanders, Abbie Hoffman, David Dellinger, Terry Southern, Jean Genet, William Burroughs, Dick Gregory, Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, and Rennie Davis. 2,000 later march from the Coliseum to Grant Park.

In Lincoln Park, 200 clergy and lay church people, toting a 12-foot cross, join 2,000 protestors to remain in the park past curfew. Again, tear gas and club-swinging police clear the park. Many head south to the Loop and Grant Park.

At Grant Park, in front of the Hilton, where the television cameras are, 4,000 demonstrators rally to speeches by Julian Bond, Davis, and Hayden. Mary Traverse and Peter Yarrow sing. The rally is peaceful. At 3 AM the National Guard relieve the police. The crowd is allowed to stay in Grant Park all night.

August 28, Wednesday: 10-15,000 gather at the old Grant Park bandshell for the MOBE's antiwar rally. Dellinger, Gregory, Ginsberg, Norman Mailer, Jerry Rubin, Carl Oglesby, Hayden, and many others speak. 600 police surround the rally on all sides. National Guardsmen are posted on the roof of the nearby Field Museum.

In the Convention at the Amphitheatre, the peace plank proposed for the Democratic party platform is voted down.

At the bandshell rally, news of the defeat of the peace plank is heard on radios. A young man begins to lower the American flag flying near the bandshell. Police push through the crowd to arrest him. Then a group, including at least one undercover police officer, completes the flag lowering and raises a red or blood-splattered shirt. Police move in again. A line of MOBE marshals is formed between the police and the crowd. Police charge the marshal line. Rennie Davis is beaten unconscious.

At rally's end Dellinger announces a march to the Amphitheatre, while Hayden urges the crowd to move in small groups to the Loop. 6,000 join the march line, but, since it has no permit and the police refuse to allow it to use the sidewalks, the march does not move. After an hour of negotiation, the march line begins to break up. Protestors try to cross over to Michigan Avenue, but the Balbo and Congress bridges have been sealed off by National Guardsmen armed with .30 caliber machine guns and grenade launchers. The crowd moves north and finds that the Jackson Street bridge is unguarded. Thousands surge onto Michigan Avenue. Coincidentally, the mule train of Ralph Abernathy's Poor People's Campaign, which has a permit to go to the Amphitheatre, is passing south on Michigan. The crowd joins it. At Michigan and Balbo the crowd is halted again. Only the mule train is allowed to continue.

Deputy Police Superintendent James Rochford orders the police to clear the streets. Demonstrators and bystanders are clubbed, beaten, Maced, and arrested. Some fight back and the attack escalates. The melee last about seventeen minutes and is filmed by the TV crews positioned at the Hilton. While this was probably not the most violent episode of Convention Week—the Lincoln Park and Old Town brawls were more vicious—it drew the most attention from the mass media.

Inside the Amphitheatre, presidential nominations are underway. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, in his speech nominating George McGovern, denounces the "Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago." Mayor Daley's shouted reaction was on-camera, but off-mike. Lip-readers later decoded a vulgar rage. Hubert H. Humphrey wins the party's nomination on the first ballot.

500 antiwar delegates march from the Amphitheatre to the Hilton; many join the 4,000 protestors in Grant Park. Again, protestors are allowed to stay in the park all night.

August 29, Thursday: Senator Eugene McCarthy addresses about 5,000 gathered in Grant Park. Several attempts are made to march to the Amphitheatre. A group of delegates try to lead a march but are turned back with tear gas. Dick Gregory invites all the demonstrators to his house, which happens to be in the direction of the Amphitheatre. This too is turned back, at 18th Street.

Near midnight, the 1968 Democratic National Convention is adjourned. The arrest count for Convention Week disturbances stands at 668. An undetermined number of demonstrators sustained injuries, with hospitals reporting that they treated 111 demonstrators. The on-the-street medical teams from the Medical Committee for Human Rights estimated that their medics treated over 1,000 demonstrators at the scene. The police department reported that 192 officers were injured, with 49 officers seeking hospital treatment.




Congratulations Richard Nixon, you have been elected President thanks to the anti-war movement!

Is that enough information for you Picadilly?

The antiwar movement in this country in a few months will be about 60% of the population.

don't think so at all...not enough people care, and not enough young people in search of a cause. the anti-war movement is nothing much but a few sincere folk...and a bunch of those who seeem to do this for a livingb...or for kicks...or because central committee says they must to maintain party membership in some crazy party...like the swp.

I am replacing a few posts; most of the discussion between beamer619 and Marine at beamer's request.

I made one necessary edit to a post at the beginning of the discussion; the board administrators would appreciate it if the continuing discussion did not reference the original misstatement.

Thank you.

The US never has ratified or accepted the laws which ban the use of this particular weapon. During the Persian Gulf War, The US dropped about 500 of these bombs on Iraqis.

Thanks, but I fail to grasp the reasoning behind that last line.

What is it exactly that you seem to attribute to the anti-war movement as the major contributing factor to the election of Nixon as president and how exactly did this factor influence the outcome of the elections ?

No mention of those previous events which led to Chicago '68 ?

Why ?

And the Nam had nothing to do with this ?

Here is an excerpt from Rights in Conflict, describing those events which incidentally happened just a few blocks south where I used to live then, and when I experienced my first whiff of tear gas and thought I used up all the tears I could ever cry in a lifetime

Rights in Conflict:

The violent confrontation of demonstrators and police in the parks and streets of Chicago during the week of the Democratic National Convention of 1968.

A report submitted by Daniel Walker, director of the Chicago Study Team, to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.

The report was publicly released on December 1, 1968 and is based on the Chicago Study Team's review of over 20,000 pages of statements from 3,437 eyewitnesses and participants, 180 hours of film, and over 12,000 still photographs. This excerpt reproduces in full the summary that prefaced the report.

A Summary

During the week of the Democratic National Convention, the Chicago police were the targets of mounting provocation by both word and act. It took the form of obscene epithets, and of rocks, sticks, bathroom titles, and even human feces hurled at police by demonstrators. Some of these acts had been planned; others were spontaneous or were themselves provoked by police action. Furthermore, the police had been put on edge by widely published threats of attempts to disrupt both the city and the Convention.

That was the nature of the provocation. The nature of the response was unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions, particularly at night.

That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in, the areas where confrontations were occurring.

Newsmen and photographers were singled out for assault, and their equipment deliberately damaged. Fundamental police training was ignored; and officers, when on the scene, were often unable to control their men. As on police officer put it: "What happened didn't have anything to do with police work."

The violence reached its culmination on Wednesday night.

The report prepared by an inspector from the Los Angeles Police Department, present as an official observer, while generally praising the police restraint he had observed in the parks during the week, had this to say about the events that night:

There is no question but that many officers acted without restraint and exerted force beyond that necessary under the circumstances. The leadership at the point of conflict did little to prevent such conduct and the direct control of offices by first line supervisors was virtually non-existent.

He is referring to the police-crowd confrontations in front of the Conrad Hilton Hotel. Most Americans know about it, having seen the 17-minute sequence played and replayed on their television screens.

But most Americans do not know that the confrontation was followed by even more brutal incidents in the Loop side streets. Or that it had been preceded by comparable instances of indiscriminate police attacks on the North Side a few nights earlier when demonstrators were cleared from Lincoln Park and pushed into the streets and alleys of Old Town.

How did it start? With the emergence long before convention week of three factors which figured significantly in the outbreak of violence. These were: threats to the city; the city's response; and the conditioning of Chicago police to expect that violence against demonstrators, as against rioters, would be condoned by city officials.

The threats to the City were varied. Provocative and inflammatory statements, made in connection with activities planned for convention week, were published and widely disseminated. There were also intelligence reports from informants.

Some of this information was absurd, like the reported plan to contaminate the city's water supply with LSD. But some were serious: and both were strengthened by the authorities' lack of any mechanism for distinguishing one from the other.

The second factor—the city's response—matched, in numbers and logistics at least, the demonstrators' threats.

The city, fearful that the "leaders" would not be able to control their followers, attempted to discourage an inundation of demonstrators by not granting permits for marches and rallies and making it quite clear that the "law" would be enforced.

Government—federal, state, and local—moved to defend itself from threats, both imaginary and real. The preparations were detailed and far ranging: from stationing firemen at each alarm box within a six block radius of the Amphitheatre to staging U.S. Army armored personnel carriers in Soldier Field under Secret Service control. Six thousand Regular Army troops in full field gear, equipped with rifles, flame throwers, and bazookas were airlifted to Chicago on Monday, August 26. About 6,000 Illinois National Guard troops had already been activated to assist the 12,000 member Chicago Police Force.

Of course, the Secret Service could never afford to ignore threats of assassination of Presidential candidates. Neither could the city, against the background of riots in 1967 and 1968, ignore the ever-present threat of ghetto riots, possibly sparked by large numbers of demonstrators, during convention week.

The third factor emerged in the city's position regarding the riots following the death of Dr. Martin Luther King and the April 27th peace march to the Civic Center in Chicago.

The police were generally credited with restraint in handling the first riots—but Mayor Daley rebuked the Superintendent of Police. While it was later modified, his widely disseminated "shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters" order undoubtedly had an effect.

The effect on police became apparent several weeks later, when they attacked demonstrators, bystanders, and media representatives at a Civic Center march. There were published criticisms—but the city's response was to ignore the police violence.

That was the background. On August 18, 1968, the advance contingent of demonstrators arrived in Chicago and established their base, as planned, in Lincoln Park on the city's Near North Side. Throughout the week, they were joined by others—some from the Chicago area, some from states as far away as New York and California. On the weekend before the convention began, there were about 2,000 demonstrators in Lincoln Park; the crowd grew to about 10,000 by Wednesday.

There were, of course, the hippies—the long hair and love beads, the calculated unwashedness, the flagrant banners, the open lovemaking and disdain for the constraints of conventional society. In dramatic effect, both visual and vocal, these dominated a crowd whose members actually differed widely in physical appearance, in motivation, in political affiliation, in philosophy. The crowd included Yippies come to "do their thing," youngsters working for a political candidate, professional people with dissenting political views, anarchists and determined revolutionaries, motorcycle gangs, black activists, young thugs, police and secret service undercover agents. There were demonstrators waving the Viet Cong flag and the red flag of revolution and there were the simply curious who came to watch and, in many cases, became willing or unwilling participants.

To characterize the crowd, then, as entirely hippie-Yippie, entirely "New Left," entirely anarchist, or entirely youthful political dissenters is both wrong and dangerous. The stereotyping that did occur helps explain the emotional reaction of both police and public during and after the violence that occurred.

Despite the presence of some revolutionaries, the vast majority of the demonstrators were intent on expressing by peaceful means their dissent either from the society generally or from the administration's policies in Vietnam.

Most of those intending to join the major protest demonstrations scheduled during convention week did not plan to enter the Amphitheatre and disrupt the proceedings of the Democratic convention, did not plan aggressive acts of physical provocation against the authorities, and did not plan to use rallies of demonstrators to stage an assault against any person, institution, or place of business. But while it is clear that most of the protestors in Chicago had no intention of initiating violence, this is not to say that they did not expect it to develop.

It was the clearing of the demonstrators from Lincoln Park that led directly to the violence: symbolically, it expressed the city's opposition to the protesters; literally, it forced the protesters into confrontation with police in Old Town and the adjacent neighborhoods.

The Old Town area near Lincoln Park was a scene of police ferocity exceeding that shown on television on Wednesday night. From Sunday night through Tuesday night, incidents of intense and indiscriminate violence occurred in the streets after police had swept the park clear of demonstrators.

Demonstrators attacked too. And they posed difficult problems for police as they persisted in marching through the streets, blocking traffic and intersections. But it was the police who forced them out of the park and into the neighborhood. And on the part of the police there was enough wild club swinging, enough cries of hatred, enough gratuitous beating to make the conclusion inescapable that individual policemen, and lots of them, committed violent acts far in excess of the requisite force for crowd dispersal or arrest. To read dispassionately the hundreds of statements describing at firsthand the events of Sunday and Monday nights is to become convinced of the presence of what can only be called a police riot.

Here is an eyewitness talking about Monday night:

The demonstrators were forced out onto Clark Street and once again a traffic jam developed. Cars were stopped, the horns began to honk, people couldn't move, people got gassed inside their cars, people got stoned inside their cars, police were the objects of stones, and taunts, mostly taunts. As you must understand, most of the taunting of the police was verbal. There were stones thrown of course, but for the most part it was verbal. But there were stones being thrown and of course the police were responding with tear gas and clubs and every time they could get near enough to a demonstrator they hit him.

But again you had this problem within—this really turned into a police problem. They pushed everybody out of the park, but this night there were a lot more people in the park than there had been during the previous night and Clark Street was just full of people and in addition now was full of gas because the police were using gas on a much larger scale this night. So the police were faced with the task, which took them and hour or so, of hitting people over the head and gassing them enough to get them out of Clark Street, which they did.

But the police action was not confined to the necessary force, even in clearing the park:

A young man and his girl friend were both grabbed by officers. He screamed, "We're going, we're going," but they threw him into the pond. The officers grabbed the girl, knocked here to the ground, dragged her along the embankment and hit her with the batons on her head, arms, back and legs. The boy tried to scramble up the embankment to her, but police shoved him back in the water at least twice. He finally got to her and tried to pull her in the water, away from the police. He was clubbed on the head five or six times. An officer shouted, "Let's get the "expletive deleted"ing bastards!" but the boy pulled her in the water and the police left.

Like the incident described above, much of the violence witnessed in Old Town that night seems malicious or mindless:

There were pedestrians. People who were not part of the demonstration were coming out of a tavern to see what the demonstration was . . . and the officers indiscriminately started beating everyone on the street who was not a policeman.

Another scene:

There was a group of about six police officers that moved in and started beating two youths. When one of the officers pulled back his nightstick to swing, one of the youths grabbed it from behind and started beating on the officer. At this point about ten officers left everybody else and ran after this youth, who turned down Wells and ran to the left.

But the officers went to the right, picked up another youth, assuming it was the one they were chasing, and took him into an empty lot and beat him. And when they got him to the ground, they just kicked him ten times—the wrong youth, the innocent youth who had been standing there.

A federal legal official relates an experience of Tuesday evening.

I then walked one block north where I met a group of 12-15 policemen. I showed them my identification and they permitted me to walk with them. The police walked one block west. Numerous people were watching us from their windows and balconies. The police yelled profanities at them, taunting them to come down where the police would beat them up. The police stopped a number of people on the street demanding identification. They verbally abused each pedestrian and pushed one or two without hurting them. We walked back to Clark Street and began to walk north where the police stopped a number of people who appeared to be protesters, and ordered them out of the area in a very abusive way. One protester who was walking in the opposite direction was kneed in the groin by a policeman who was walking towards him. The boy fell to the ground and swore at the policeman who picked him up and threw him to the ground. We continued to walk toward the command post. A derelict who appeared to be very intoxicated, walked up to the policeman and mumbled something that was incoherent. The policeman pulled from his belt a tin container and sprayed its contents into the eyes of the derelict, who stumbled around and fell on his face.

It was on these nights that the police violence against media representatives reached its peak. Much of it was plainly deliberate. A newsman was pulled aside Monday by a detective acquaintance of his who said: "The word is being passed to get newsmen." Individual newsmen were warned, "You take my picture tonight and I'm going to get you." Cries of "get the camera" preceded individual attacks on photographers.

A newspaper photographer describes Old Town on Monday at about 9:00 p.m.:

When the people arrived at the intersection of Wells and Division, they were not standing in the streets. Suddenly a column of policemen ran out from the alley. They were reinforcements. They were under control but there seemed to be no direction. One man was yelling, "Get them up on the sidewalk, turn them around." Very suddenly the police charged the people on the sidewalks and began beating their heads. A line of cameramen was 'trapped' along with the crowd along the sidewalks, and the police went down the line chopping away at the cameras.

A network cameraman reports that on the same night:

I just saw this guy coming at me with his nightstick and I had the camera up. The tip of his stick hit me right in the mouth, then I put my tongue up and noticed my tooth was gone. I turned around then to try to leave and then this cop came up behind me with his stick and jabbed me in the back.

All of the sudden these cops jumped out of the police cars and started just beating the hell out of people. And before anything else happened to me, I saw a man holding a Bell & Howell camera with big, wide letters on it, saying, 'CBS.' He apparently had been hit by a cop. And cops were standing around and there was blood streaming down his face. Another policeman was running after me and saying, "Get the "expletive deleted" out of here." And I heard another guy scream, "Get their "expletive deleted"ing cameras." And the next thing I know I was being hit on the head, and I think on the back, and I was just forced down on the ground at the corner of Division and Wells.

If the intent was to discourage coverage, it was successful in at least one case. A photographer from a news magazine says that finally, "I just stopped shooting, because every time you push the flash, they look at you and they are screaming about, 'Get the "expletive deleted"ing photographers and get the film.' "

There is some explanation for the media-directed violence. Camera crews on at least two occasions did stage violence and fake injuries. Demonstrators did sometimes step up their activities for the benefit of TV cameras. Newsmen and photographers' blinding lights did get in the way of police clearing streets, sweeping the park, and dispersing demonstrators. Newsmen did, on occasion, disobey legitimate police orders to "move" or "clear the streets." News reporting of events did seem to the police to be anti-Chicago and anti-police.

But was the response appropriate to the provocation?

Out of the 300 newsmen assigned to cover the parks and streets of Chicago during convention week, more than 60 (about 20%) were involved in incidents resulting in injury to themselves, damage to their equipment, or to their arrest. Sixty-three newsmen were physically attacked by police: in 13 of these instances, photographic or recording equipment was intentionally damaged.

The violence did not end with either demonstrators or newsmen on the North Side on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. It continued in Grant Park on Wednesday. It occurred on Michigan Avenue in front of the Conrad Hilton Hotel, as already described. A high-ranking Chicago police commander admits that on occasion the police "got out of control." This same commander appears in one of the most vivid scenes of the entire week, trying desperately to keep individual policemen from beating demonstrators as he screams, "For Christ's sake, stop it!"

Thereafter the violence continued on Michigan Avenue and on the side streets running into Chicago's Loop. A federal official describes how it began:

I heard a 10-1 call [policeman in trouble] on either my radio or one of the other hand sets carried by men with me and then heard "Car 100-sweep." With a roar of motors, squads, vans, and three-wheelers came from the east, west, and north into the block north of Jackson. The crowd scattered. A big group ran west on Jackson, with a group of blue-shirted policemen in pursuit, beating at them with clubs. Some of the crowd would jump into doorways and the police would rout them out. The action was very tough. In my judgment, unnecessarily so. The police were hitting with a vengeance and quite obviously with relish. . . .

What followed was a club-swinging melee. Police ranged the streets striking anyone they could catch. To be sure, demonstrators threw things at police and at police cars; but the weight of the violence was overwhelmingly on the side of the police. A few examples will give the flavor of that night in Chicago:

"At the corner of Congress Plaza and Michigan," states a doctor, "was gathered a group of people, numbering between thirty and forty. They were trapped against a railing [along a ramp leading down from Michigan Avenue to an underground parking garage] by several policemen on motorcycles. The police charged the people on motorcycles and struck about a dozen of them, knocking several of them down. About twenty standing there jumped over the railing. On the other side of the railing was a three-to-four foot drop. None of the people who were struck by the motorcycles appeared to be seriously injured. However, several of them were limping as if they had been run over on their feet."

A UPI reporter witnessed these attacks, too. He relates in his statement that one officer, "with a smile on his face and a fanatical look in his eyes, was standing on a three-wheel cycle, shouting, 'Wahoo, wahoo,' and trying to run down people on the sidewalk." The reporter says he was chased thirty feet by the cycle.

A priest who was in the crowd says he saw a "boy, about fourteen or fifteen, white, standing on top of an automobile yelling something which was unidentifiable. Suddenly a policeman pulled him down from the car and beat him to the ground by striking him three or four times with a nightstick. Other police joined in . . . and they eventually shoved him to a police van.

"A well-dressed woman saw this incident and spoke angrily to a nearby police captain. As she spoke, another policeman came up behind her and sprayed something in her face with an aerosol can. He then clubbed her to the ground. He and two other policemen then dragged her along the ground to the same paddy wagon and threw her in."

"I ran west on Jackson," a witness states. "West of Wabash, a line of police stretching across both sidewalks and the street charged after the small group I was in. Many people were clubbed and maced as they ran. Some weren't demonstrators at all, but were just pedestrians who didn't know how to react to the charging officers yelling 'Police!'"

"A wave of police charged down Jackson," another witness relates. "Fleeing demonstrators were beaten indiscriminately and a temporary, makeshift first aid station was set up on the corner of State and Jackson. Two men lay in pools of blood, their heads severely cut by clubs. A minister moved amongst the crowd, quieting them, brushing aside curious onlookers, and finally asked a policeman to call an ambulance, which he agreed to do. . . . "

An Assistant U.S. Attorney later reported that "the demonstrators were running as fast as they could but were unable to get out of the way because of the crowds in front of them. I observed the police striking numerous individuals, perhaps 20 to 30. I saw three fall down and then overrun by the police. I observed two demonstrators who had multiple cuts on their heads. We assisted one who was in shock into a passer-by's car."

Police violence was a fact of convention week. Were the policemen who committed it a minority? It appears certain that they were—but one which has imposed some of the consequences of its actions on the majority, and certainly on their commanders. There has been no public condemnation of these violators of sound police procedures and common decency by either their commanding officers or city officials. Nor (at the time this report is being completed—almost three months after the convention) has any disciplinary action been taken against most of them. That some policemen lost control of themselves under exceedingly provocative circumstances can be understood; but not condoned. If no action is taken against them, the effect can only be to discourage the majority of policemen who acted responsibly, and further weaken the bond between police and community.

Although the crowds were finally dispelled on the nights of violence in Chicago, the problems they represent have not been. Surely this is not the last time that a violent dissenting group will clash head-on with those whose duty it is to enforce the law. And the next time the whole world will still be watching.

I wasn't old enough to vote in 1968, but was on the anti-war side in favor of Eugene McCarthy, and of course I loved Bobby Kennedy. I was in high school at the time, so I was pretty absorbed in all that high school stuff. My take on it was that there was some pretty strong civil disobience and very brave folks in Chicago, and that the police were extremely heavy-handed. I thought Richard Daley was pretty much a thug.

My view is that any movement toward peace is toward the evolution of man and our society. Reacting toward war or remaining at the status quo are steps backward in the evolution of human beings in my opinion. So, peace demonstrations to me are efforts by certain members of our society to push the rest of the society toward a more enlightened position.

The fact that Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey was not that big of a deal to me, as the outcome concerning Vietnam would probably have been similar. The anti-war position would have taken us down a different path. Obviously, the country wasn't ready for that path, and we don't appear to be so today either. That's why Bush was reelected.

Democrats don't need to be ashamed of being an anti-war party or one that favors diplomacy over conflict. That is the real position of strength and of enlightened leadership. Democrats can be ever-vigilent and fearlessly seeking non-violent solutions to world problems.

And methinks we've actually seen reports of two instances where they were used in the opening days of the most recent incursion into Iraq. Both were done by Marines from Harriers against dug in military positions with no civilians in the area. None was in Fallujah!

Can anyone point out any viable reports of "napalm" or other incendiary weapons, other than the phosphorous smoke and illumination rounds, used in Fallujah? As methinks I said previously, this mighta been pretty thoroughly discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, and less thoroughly inna couple dozen other threads. IMHO the discussions in these linked threads plus the pictures, video and eyewitness accounts from Fallujah that were previously posted or linked to in various places around this site pretty well refuted them allegations.

Methinks my bottom line is does anyone have any new information to back up these allegations, or are we really just gonna recycle old previously refuted rumors? So far my impression is the latter, eh?

Despite Bush supporter tactics to disguise the facts about using lethal clones to napalm and phosphorous in Iraq, this article should put things in a more open light.

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1928.shtml

International Law

Fire Bombs in Iraq: Napalm By Any Other Name

Report, Iraq Analysis Group, 15 April 2005

Summary

This briefing examines the continuing use of incendiary weapons (“napalm”) by the US military in Iraq. While the UK government has attempted to downplay or deny the use of incendiaries in Iraq, US officials have been forced to admit using the MK-77 incendiary, a modern form of napalm. The UK is party to an international convention banning such weapons where they may cause harm to civilians. In Iraq, UK forces are part of a coalition which does not adhere to internationally agreed standards of warfare.

Iraq Analysis Group, March 2005


2. Napalm present

The US military has in its current arsenal a modern form of napalm. Known as the MK-77 Mod 5, the bombs are dropped from aircraft and ignite on impact. They contain a lethal mixture of aircraft fuel and polystyrene, which forms a sticky, flammable gel. As it burns, the gel sticks to structures and to the bodies of its victims. The light aluminium containers lack stabilising fins, making them far from precision weapons.

The MK-77 is the only incendiary now in use by the US military. It is an evolution of the napalm bombs M-47 and M-74 that were used in Vietnam and Korea. In the new weapon, the flammable gel is made up of kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene. The MK-77 bomb reportedly also contains an oxidizing agent. This makes it even more difficult to put out once ignited.

While the composition of the weapons has evolved, the targets remain the same. Incendiaries are typically used against dug-in troops, supply installations, wooden structures, and land convoys.

Use of incendiaries is restricted by the 1980 UN Convention on 'Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious Or To Have Indiscriminate Effects'. [2] The United Kingdom has fully ratified this convention and must abide by it and its additional protocols. More than 80 other countries have done the same.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." [3]

However, although the United States has ratified the convention, it has not signed up to the protocol on incendiary weapons.


3. Firebombs in Iraq

During and immediately after the invasion, US officials denied claims that napalm weapons were being deployed. [5] However, as military personnel and journalists in Iraq quickly presented evidence of their use, by August 2003 Pentagon spokesmen were forced to admit that MK-77 firebombs had been dropped. Past denials were justified on the grounds that questioners had used the term 'napalm' instead of 'firebombs' or 'MK-77s'. The US claims to have destroyed all its stocks of 'napalm' and argues that the MK-77 cannot be included in this term. However, the Pentagon admits that the MK-77 is an incendiary with a function 'remarkably similar' to that of napalm. [6]

In fact, the US military itself refers to the new-generation MK-77 as 'napalm'. The term is even used in official documents such as Defend America, the monthly US Department of Defense publication describing the progress of the 'war on terror'. In February 2003 the publication proudly described preparations for the coming war, detailing the build-up of weapons in Kuwait:

Everything from hand grenades to 2,000-pound bombs and napalm are shipped, ready for use whenever 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing needs them. [7]

Military personnel routinely refer to MK-77 incendiaries as 'napalm':

'We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches', said Colonel Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. 'Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die'. He added, 'The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.'[8]

. Recent use of incendiaries: Firebombing Fallujah

In November 2004 US forces launched a massive attack on the city of Fallujah. Much of the city was destroyed and tens of thousands of residents fled as refugees.

Reports have emerged of burnt and melted bodies in the city, consistent with the use of napalm or the equally controversial weapon white phosphorus (also known as 'Willy Pete')

Residents who survived the attack reported seeing incendiary bombs used in the city. Abu Sabah, who lived in the Julan district of Fallujah which witnessed some of the heaviest attacks, said:

"They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud... then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them."

He said that pieces of these strange bombs explode into large fires that burn the skin even when water is thrown on the burns. [9]

"Usually we keep the gloves on," said Army Capt. Erik Krivda, of Gaithersburg, Md., the senior officer in charge of the 1st Infantry Division's Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. "For this operation, we took the gloves off."

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted." [10]


Conclusion

UK troops are working in coalition with a military that is using napalm weapons in all but name. During the assault on Fallujah, UK soldiers were placed under the command of US forces, despite the UK being party to a UN Convention restricting the use of incendiaries and other inhumane weapons.

While the UK has done much to further other parts of the convention, including pushing for a total ban on anti-personnel mines, in this instance the UK government is condoning the actions of its coalition partner, even though they step well outside internationally agreed standards.

Okay, I finally found one of the articles I'd seen confirming the limited use of incendiary weapons with napalm like characteristics in our most recent Iraq incursion. The San Diego Union-Tribune had one, "Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops", in which the folks in charge of using them explain. eh? It lists two verifiable instances of use against military fortifications during the first days of our invasion, and one questionnable instance against the same type of target.

'Twould seem no one else has yet come up with anythin' more that third and fourth hand anecdotal reports, rhetoric and hyperbole 'bout any other use of true firebombs in Iraq, especially against civilian targets. Methinks if there was somethin' solid 'bout this out there somebody woulda found and posted it, eh?

Realizin' the San Diego Union-Tribune ain't AlterNet, CounterPunch, World Workers' Daily or any of the other sources preferred by so many here I thought I'd provide it anyway. Methinks there might be a few here more interested in actual news stories rather than hyperbole or rhetoric, eh? Am I right?

You know Fly, You are amoung the few remaining people on earth who believe your government is telling you the truth. Lie after lie after lie and you still buy it all. In the case of the Bush administration I assume everthing they say is a lie unless proven otherwise. Thats how bad they are. I did not assume that is previous administrations. They all tell some lies but nowhere near the total lack of morals the Bush people have.

Flydangler, I'm glad you found a source that confirms the use of napalm-like devices in Iraq. It has been this Administration's contention that our armed forces never used napalm- which is exactly like Clinton saying he never had sex with Monica simply because it never went beyond oral. Mark 77 is technically not napalm in the same way that a blowjob is technically not sex.

But that's the point David Sobein is making- this Administration lies even when it's easier and better to tell the truth. Look at my signature- there is a quote from President Bush- Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Then listen to Rove, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, or Rumsfeld- all of whom have stated at one time or another that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11. The statements are mutually exclusive, so someone lied.

The Brits learned of such lies by the BushCons as explained in this article. The lies just keeps piling on.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1518793,00.html


US misled UK over Iraq fire bombs

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday July 1, 2005
The Guardian

The government was asked yesterday to explain why the US failed to tell it the truth about use on Iraq of incendiary bombs, successors to the napalm used in Vietnam.

The MoD repeatedly denied Mark 77 incendiary bombs were dropped, on the basis of US assurances. Defence secretary John Reid now says the assurances, made to predecessor Geoff Hoon, were wrong and he "must correct the position".

He continues: "US policy in relation to international conventions is a matter for the US government, but all of our allies are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law."

Mr Ancram said the issue raised questions "about the quality of our communications with our US allies", and has asked Mr Reid to explain.

When reports surfaced, the Pentagon separated "napalm" from "firebombs". According to GlobalSecurity.org, MK77s "function identical to earlier MK77 napalm weapons" using kerosene rather than benzene.

Is a blowjob sex?