WEAPONS OF WAR
THE 6TH TRUMPET OF REVELATION!
TURN YOUR SOUND DOWN IF YOU
FIND IT DISTURBING
compiled by Dee Finney
|The 6th Trumpet Judgment (Revelation 9:13-21) is the
destruction of 1/3 of mankind by 200 million demonic horsemen. Although
the tendency is to interpret these horsemen with a modern parallel of
military hardware, it will probably be as straightforward as the text
seems to demand.
The sixth trumpet, the second Woe! (9:13-21)
v13 - The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God. - The golden altar is connected to the prayers of the saints (Rev 8:3). The sixth trumpet is in response to the prayers of the saints. For horn, see Lev 8:15, when Moses slaughtered the bull he took some of the blood with his finger and touched the horns of the altar to purify the altar.
v14 - It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates" - The four angels are bound so they must evil, they are released at God's command, whose purpose is to get men to repent, see verses 20-21. The four angels cover each direction of the compass, the idea being that they are released to affect the whole earth. Compare these angels with the first four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, 7:1. The Euphrates marks the boundary between Israel and her enemies (Gen 15:18, Deu 1:7, Jos 1:4), Babylon which is on the Euphrates would be to the North of Israel and it is from the North that her enemies came (Jer 25:9, Ezek 26:7, 39:2). Compare this with the sixth bowl (Rev 16:12) in which the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings of the East. Compare also with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
v15 - And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. - The precise timing of their release indicates that they are under the divine control of God. Their purpose is to kill a third of mankind, no more no less, that is a limited number, because this is a warning to mankind. From the precise timing of their release this seems to be a specific event in history, and is therefore probably eschatological, in the light of the discussion in the next verse this event corresponds to the second coming (compare with Mat 24:36, Acts 1:7, Gen 7:11) or at least the final battle associated with it. Compare the sixth seal, sixth trumpet and sixth bowl, they all seem to refer to either the last battle or the second coming.
v16 - The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number. - The troops are mounted, meaning that they are prepared for war. Two hundred million is a large number which he could not count, but he heard their number. Compare the description here with the chariots of God in Psa 68:17, the horses like a swarm of locusts in Jer 51:27 and the horses that fly like a vulture swooping to devour of Hab 1:8. In Joel the army invades mankind on the day of the Lord (Joel 2:11-11) as this is the sixth trumpet and the seventh trumpet depicts the handing over of the world to Christ, his eternal reign and the judgement, this vision corresponds to the last great battle (see Joel 3:1-2, 9-16). The last great battle is also found in Rev 16:14, 17:14, 19:17, 20:7. Note that the sixth seal also corresponds to the second coming (Rev 6:12). The sixth bowl refers to the battle on the great day of God Almighty (Rev 16:14) and the second coming is mentioned in the next verse (16:15). This is another example of the parallelism of the book.
v17 - The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulphur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulphur. - Here is the only place in which John indicates that what he saw was in a vision. The breastplates had the same colours as the fire, smoke and sulphur which came out of the horses' mouths, see v18, this indicates the unified purpose of both horse and rider. Compare the lions' heads here with the lions' teeth of the locusts, this indicates strength.
v18 - A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur that came out of their mouths.- This imagery seems to refers to war. The imagery like the locusts is similar to Joel 2:4-5, 'They have the appearance of horses; they gallop along like cavalry. With a noise like that of chariots they leap over the mountain tops, like a crackling fire consuming stubble, like a mighty army drawn up for battle.' Once again it is a limited number that is killed, a third of mankind is killed. Fire and sulphur remind us of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24, Luke 17:29), this was God's judgement on wickedness, a foretaste of hell (Jude 1:7 cf. Rev 14:10-11).
v19 - The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury. - The snakes indicate their demonic origin, Luke 10:19. The three plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur came out of their mouths, v17, 18. Their tails also inflict injury. The word for snake (ophis) is the same word used to describe Satan in 12:9 (see also 12:14, 15, 20:2 cf. John 3:14, 2 Cor 11:3)
v20 - The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands they did not stop worshipping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk. - Mankind is here accused of worshipping demons and in the fifth trumpet they are plagued by demons and possibly also in the sixth trumpet, the warning fits the sin. Later we find mankind worshipping the dragon and the beast (13:4) and his image (13:15) that is idolatry. The plagues are directed at unrepentant mankind, not at God's people, those who survive these plagues still did not repent. Some are killed by these plagues but to the rest they are warnings to man to repent. Consider Jesus reaction to the persecution of the Jews by Pilate or to those who died when the tower fell on those in Siloam (Luke 13:1-5) his reaction was to say to the people 'do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.' Despite the warning plagues from God, some natural some not, man refuses to worship God and give him the glory as Creator, Amos 4:10.
First man is guilty of idolatry, worshipping created things not the Creator, Rom 1:23. He breaks the first tablet of the law (Ex 20:3-11, Deu 5:7, 2 King 17:35-39) rather than worship the creator (Rev 14:7). The stupidity of idolatry is emphasised by the phase 'idols that cannot see or hear or walk' in contrast to the living creator God, Dan 5:23, Psa 115:4-5, Jer 10:5. This hammers home the point that despite these plagues mankind prefers to worship created things rather than God, the message of Revelation is that mankind is to worship God and Him alone. Consider the worship of the living creatures and the elders of the Creator God, 4:8-11; the worship of the Lamb, 5:8 ff.; all the inhabitants of the earth worship the beast, 13:8 (compare the worship of demons and idols here with the worship of the beast and his image in 13:8, 15).
Consider also the message of the first angel flying in mid-air proclaiming the eternal gospel which is to fear God and give him glory and to worship him as Creator, 14:6-7; consider the dire warning to those who worship the beast and his image in 14:9-11. Twice John is rebuked because he worshipped an angel (19:10, 22:8) and is told to worship God. In the case of the church at Pergamum and Thyatira eating food offered to idols is condemned (2:14, 20). Note that in 21:8 the place of idolaters is in the fiery lake of burning sulphur, we should therefore see the trumpets as agents of God's mercy rather than wrath, despite the fact that people do not repent. Notice the response of those at Ephesus who practised sorcery, they publicly burned their books on sorcery; it is better to burn ones books on the occult than to burn in the lake of fire. God's decree in Deu 7:5, 12:3 is to break down the altars, smash the sacred stones and burn the idols in the fire, see Josiah's response in 2 Kings 23 who did as described in Deuteronomy.
v21 - Nor did they repent of their murders,
their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts - This is
the first indictment against mankind, they did not repent, see also: Rev
11:18, Rev 14:7, Rev 14:9-11, Rev 16:5-6, Rev 16:8-11. Having rejected
God as creator mankind now inevitably breaks the second tablet of the
law (Deu 5:17 and Rom 1:24, 28). The punishment is indicated in Rev
21:8, their (murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic
arts) lot will be in the lake of burning sulphur.
Trumpet 6: Deadly Attack
The voice instructs the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the “four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates” (verse 14). Since they are bound, they must be fallen angels or demons. Their release is by divine permission only and is intended to allow them to function as agents of God’s wrath.
While some prefer to view this invading horde as demons, I believe they are an actual army. The battles that follow involve killing men, and the attackers are described as men (verses 16-18). The weapons with “breastplates of fire” could well be modern weapons. The “breastplates of fire” and the “fire and smoke” that shoot out of both ends of these vehicles certainly sound like tanks, airplanes or some modern weaponry.
If John really saw the future, including the great end-time wars, he would have witnessed things he could hardly understand, let alone describe. Tanks, guns, flamethrowers and laser beams all fit these possible designations. While the horde of demons is unleashed to torture and afflict men, the horde of soldiers is unleashed to attack them as well.
|2-18-05 - My dreams were like short vignettes
I was laying in bed next to Joe who was snoring. I could see out the window into a city street where a small groups (six?) 'shooters' in gray uniforms were standing next to a building with guns ready.
I kept nudging Joe to wake up, saying, "Shooters! Look at the 'shooters'" but Joe wouldn't wake up and I felt very frustrated.
Then I realized that I was sleeping too and dreaming this and it wasn't real.
NOTE: After I woke up I was thinking about that dream and I had a quick vision which showed me the same 'shooters' in gray uniforms and wearing flight helmets , standing in a desert-like area like they had just flown in.
A voice said, "They looked like this1" and it looked very real.
NOTE 2: I wasn't familiar with the term 'shooters' but a couple days later, the very next page I came to in a book I was slowly reading titled, "The Rogue Warriors - Strategy for Success" by Richard Marcinko, I came to this on page 20: (He was talking about how he trained even the lowliest of his team to do 'all' the jobs including 'flying' even though that wasn't part of their normal training according to military protocol) "The net result of my care and feeding of my grunts, or 'shooters', was that these guys would gladly move hell for me and bite the tongue off the devil. And each of them would be able to do something like that because each shooter could fly, parachute, swim, and attack all by himself, if necessary. Each man mirrored the entire machine of "SEAL" Team Six and the machine mirrored each man.
I did research on the grey uniforms, and other than civil war period which I knew this wasn't - grey uniforms are worn by the Chinese.
I didn't find any other country that used grey uniforms.
-4-19-05 - DREAM - I was living in a house with a woman named Mary. She had a husband, but he was never home. He worked night and day it seemed.
I woke up in the morning, when Mary came to the door of my bedroom and asked if I was all right.
The room was dimly lit because there were dark shades on the windows, so I couldn't tell what time it was.
I became alarmed that she needed to know if I was okay, so I got out of bed to see if she, herself was okay.
I came out into the living room, I saw on the clock that it was 10 minutes to 8 a.m. It was later than I thought and I could see that the sky was blue and the sun was shining outside. I should have gotten out of bed hours earlier.
Mary was sitting in the living room talking quietly with a couple other women.
I needed to go to the bathroom and when I went in there, I saw there was no lid or seat on the toilet, so I couldn't sit down on the toilet without falling in, so I couldn't use it.
I decided to look for another bathroom and going through the hallway, I could look into Mary's husband's bedroom.
On the wall, was a TV wall screen as large as the whole wall. It was showing a war movie.
I don't like watching war movies and this one was particularly gruesome. There was a weapon they used that shot fie, not bullets. When someone got hit with the fire the burst into flames, completely immolated and burnt to a crisp. It was so awful I couldn't watch it, so I closed my eyes to blank out the sight of it.
When I opened my eyes, the movie replayed itself and when it started getting really bad - to see the soldiers being annihilated by streams of fire coming down from the sky, I just couldn't watch it and closed my eyes again.
Again I opened my eyes and the scene started replaying itself again. It came to me that every time I closed my eyes, it would repeat the war scene and it wouldn't stop doing that until I watched the film all the way to the end or I would never be horrified enough to do something about it to prevent it in the first place.
So I stood there and watched the soldiers being hit by streams of fire coming from the sky. All the soldiers had were rifles to defend themselves with. They had no defense for these horrible weapons. They tried pressing themselves up against walls or behind objects and that didn't help. When the stream of fire came down, the fire was worse than a bullet, it could billow around corners and immolate anything that was close by.
The film just kept getting worse and worse. Unfortunately, I was so horrified to see all these solders getting burned to death, I couldn't watch the film all the way to the end. I couldn't stand to see all these men die so needlessly.
I had to close my eyes - it was too horrible to bear.
I have been posting some premonitions in the last year about a possible attack on Phoenix, Arizona. Here are some excerpts and addresses of some of the premonitions. Thank you for your time.
Thomas James Haller
“I was introduced to a woman and instantly knew that her city would be the next place of a major terrorist attack, which she said was Phoenix Arizona.” Thomas James Haller, http://www.prophecies.us/article.php?sid=550
“It was broad daylight and I don't know why I would have been in Phoenix, as I stay in the East Valley fairly exclusively, but I "felt" a 'feeling' of urgency and almost a feeling of what I think to be the 'feeling' if you were headed over a cliff towards your doom.” Deepak, http://www.prophecies.us/article.php?sid=512
“All that was clear is that a city will be attacked and that most of the people in this city will be GONE. This event will bring the United States into total devastation. At the end of the dream I heard PHOENIX, ARIZONA.” Richard Kilter, http://www.americaslastdays.com/phoenix.htm
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this station has just received word that a nuclear exposion was detonated somewhere in the state of Arizona...we have no word about survi..." TrishaDee, http://www.prophecies.us/article.php?sid=684
“Attempted or actual terrorist attack late spring near Memorial Day. Train involved? (I need to meditate more on this one) The number 5 is prominently involved. Phoenix….trains,” Niblet, http://www.prophecies.us/article.php?sid=704
“Disturbingly, again, intelligence from various sources is indicating an attack using trains in the area of Phoenix.” Ryan Mauro, http://www.worldthreats.com/al-qaeda_terrorism/Possible%20Target%20-%20Phoenix.htm
A mechanism for shooting a burning stream of liquid or semiliquid fuel at enemy troops or positions. Primitive types of flamethrowers, consisting of hollow tubes filled with burning coals, sulfur, or other materials, came into use as early as the 5th cent. B.C. Modern flamethrowers were introduced by the Germans in 1915 during World War I. They were not widely used, however, until World War II, when the Americans found them especially useful, either hand-carried or mounted on tanks, in attacking Japanese fortifications in the Pacific Islands. After World War II improved flamethrowers, lighter in weight and with greater range, were developed and used in combat.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions
on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva,
Article 1 Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. "Incendiary weapon" means 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 combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. 2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. 3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.From: Military Weapons
Weapons of War: Flamethrowers
The flamethrower, which brought terror to French and British soldiers when used by the German army in the early phases of the First World War in 1914 and 1915 (and which was quickly adopted by both) was by no means a particularly innovative weapon.
The basic idea of a flamethrower is to spread fire by launching burning fuel. The earliest flamethrowers date as far back as the 5th century B.C. These took the form of lengthy tubes filled with burning solids (such as coal or sulphur), and which were used in the same way as blow-guns: by blowing into one end of the tube the solid material inside would be propelled towards the operator's enemies.
The flamethrower was inevitably refined over the intervening centuries, although the models seen in the early days of World War One were developed at the turn of the 20th century. The German army tested two models of flamethrower - or Flammenwerfer in German - in the early 1900s, one large and one small, both developed by Richard Fiedler.
The smaller, lighter Flammenwerfer (the Kleinflammenwerfer) was designed for portable use, carried by a single man. Using pressurised air and carbon dioxide or nitrogen it belched forth a stream of burning oil for as much as 18 metres.
Fielder's second, larger model (the Grossflammenwerfer), worked along the same lines but was not suitable for transport by a single person, but whose maximum range was twice that of the smaller model; it could also sustain flames for a (then) impressive forty seconds, although it was decidedly expensive in its use of fuel.
Having tested the Flammenwerfer in 1900 the German army deployed it for use in three specialist battalions from 1911 onwards.
It was put to initial wartime use against the French in the south-eastern sector of the Western Front from October 1914, although its use was sporadic and went largely unreported.
The first notable use of the Flammenwerfer came in a surprise attack launched by the Germans upon the British at Hooge in Flanders. Springing forward at 0315 on 30 July 1915 the Germans made effective use of the portable Flammenwerfer, with gas cylinders strapped to the back of the men responsible for using the instrument, a lit nozzle attached to each cylinder.
The effect of the dangerous nature of the surprise attack proved terrifying to the British opposition, although their line, initially pushed back, was stabilised later the same night. In two days of severe fighting the British lost 31 officers and 751 other ranks during the attack.
one of the most terrifying and demoralising infantry weapons ever
produced is the portable flamethrower. As the introduction to the 1944
Australian Army training pamphlet for flamethrowers
states: " ... flame has a powerful psychological effect in that
humans instinctively withdraw from it, even when their morale is good.
In addition, it is a casualty producing and lethal agent."
first used by the German Army during WW1, the Australian Army's
experience with flamethrowers
really began during WW 2 when a need for this type of weapon was
identified. Experience showed that a stubborn enemy, when well dug into
extensive bunker systems, was extremely difficult and costly to dislodge
using the more conventional small arms and grenades.
and experimental reports about the development and use of flame throwers
were available to Australia from our Allies and demonstrated just how
effective this weapon could be, particularly in clearing out enemy from
fortifications with overhead cover.
However, the then standard US Army issue flamethrower, the M1A1, was not available in quantity so, in January 1944, design work on a local-pattern flamethrower was commenced. A pilot model, manufactured mainly by British Tube Mills (Australia) Pty Ltd, was completed by the following April.
This was designated the Flamethrower, Portable, Ferret (Aust) Mark 1, the name Ferret being suggested because it would be used to ferret out enemy from bunkers.
Despite encouraging results from the initial trials, development was slowed when it was learnt that sufficient quantities of American flamethrowers would become available shortly. Nevertheless, the Ferret was further developed, with Mk2 and MC (Improved) experimental models produced. Although never accepted into service with the Australian Army, the Ferret's fate was not finally sealed until early 1947, when a series of comparative tests against the American M2-2 flamethrower were carried out by the School of Infantry. These tests showed that the performance of both types was near identical at optimum working pressure and that there was no advantage to be gained by adopting the local-pattern Ferret.
American man-pack flamethrower which initially became available about
April 1944 which used compressed nitrogen as a propellant, compressed
hydrogen an ignition gas and a battery–powered ignition system. All
up, it weighed about 30kg (80
pounds) fully loaded. Only six are known to have been officially
supplied before being superseded by the improved
Spare pressure tanks were also manufactured in Australia, on the basis of six tanks per flamethrower.
early 1945, 162 M2-2 flamethrowers
had been allocated to Australia under lend lease, allowing an issue of
36 per jungle division plus a reserve. These were supported by special
truck-mounted, Rix Type K, three-stage air compressors which were
allocated to each division to provide a supply of pressurised cylinders.
fuel was another item which was manufactured locally. Although most
mechanised and man‑pack flamethrowers
could be satisfactorily operated using diesel fuel, extensive
experimentation showed that there was an optimum combination of
operating pressure and thickness of fuel. The optimum combination for a
particular type of flamethrower was considered to be the one which gave
the maximum range and most
burning fuel onto the target.
variations to the working pressure were not such a problem finding the
best fuel type took a considerable of experimental effort. The result
was Geletrol which was formally accepted by the General Staff as fuel
thickener in October 1944. It was made by combining various weights of
the dried chemical compound Aluminium Oleate with petrol, diesel or a
petrol‑diesel mix. The type of fuel used and the percentage
mixture depended on the intended use.
Aluminium Oleate had previously been used in relatively small quantities
for the manufacture of specialised paints and greases, its use in flame
warfare was entirely new. As a result, the sudden increase in demand
stretched production facilities in Australia to the limit. Not only had
the Army found a use for it in both man‑pack and mechanised flamethrowers
but both the RAAF and the Royal Navy (operating in the Pacific) had also
found it useful for making drop‑tank incendiary bombs.
manufacture was carried out by two companies: Fletcher Chemical Company
of Melbourne, and Robert Corbet Pty Ltd of Sydney. By early 1945, they
were supplying specially scaled tropic proof packs of the light brown,
granular chemical in either 20-pound tins for mechanised flamethrowers
or 2-pound tins for man-pack flamethrowers.
man-pack flamethrower proved a very effective weapon, being used on many
occasions in the later stages of the war. Just how effective can he
illustrated by the actions on Tarakan of the flamethrower team from
2/48th Infantry Battalion who, on May 5, 1945, attacked a bunker from a
range of about 10m. The flame went over the first bunker and into three
well-camouflaged bunkers in the rear, from which the Japanese troops
hastily withdrew without firing a shot!
Flame throwers were
used by the Japanese against Australian troops at Milne Bay.
Another world war 1 German invention, this powerful but very short ranged weapon provided a simple way to kill the enemy by fire, especially a fortified or dug in enemy which could not be effectively hit by gunfire or grenades. It operated simply by spraying a stream of ignited flammable liquid at the target, and operation was dangerous because it was to a very short range (about 30 meters) and immediately revealed the operator's position to counter fire from remaining enemy forces. This problem was partly solved by the development of flamethrower tanks, which protected the operators, and also carried much bigger and more powerful flamethrowers.
Sherman flamethrower lets loose
The Flammenwerfer was the most commonly used German flamethrower of WWII. Compressed nitrogen stored in small tank was piped into the large tank which is full of flame oil. The flame oil propelled by the compressed nitrogen left the large tank and traveled through the hose to the wand. When the trigger was pulled the flame oil shot out of the end of the wand (6). As the flame oil passed out of the wand it was ignited by a pilot light that burned hydrogen.
On Iwo Jima the soldiers had dug in so extensively that
bunkers could only be attacked by tanks or flamethrowers. Even with such
weapons it took the Marines 35 days of fighting to win an island of just
eight square miles
Flame Warfare Battalion.
Marine flamethrower operator
moves forward to assault a Japanese pillbox
The First Flag-Raising on Iwo Jima
Scott Tank sent this eyewitness account of Cpl. Charles W. Lindberg, a friend and the last surviving member of the team that raised the first flag on the crest of Mt. Suribachi. Scott asked that the story of Mr. Lindberg - we are honored to do so. Thanks go to Mr. Lindberg for the sacrifices he made during that bloody nightmare called Iwo Jima as well as all the other servicemen who gave their lives and sacrificed themselves for our country.:
It was the job of the 28th Regiment, 5th
Division, to capture Mount Suribachi. They reached the base of the
mountain on the afternoon of February 21, and by nightfall the next day
the Marines had almost completely surrounded it.
As part of that Marine group, 24-year-old Corporal Charles
Lindberg, a combat veteran of the Guadalcanal and the Bougainville
campaign, watched the intense bombardment of Iwo Jima and realized that
the landing at Red Beach One would be anything but easy. "The Japs
had the whole beach zeroed in. Most of the fire was coming from
Suribachi," he recalled. Surrounding Mount Suribachi were cliffs,
tunnels, mines, booby traps, and ravines. The hostile terrain proved to
be as tough an enemy as the Japanese who were firmly entrenched on the
At 8 a.m. on February 23, a patrol of 40 men from 3rd Platoon, E
Company, 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, led by 1LT Lieutenant Harold G.
Schrier, assembled at the base of Mount Suribachi. The platoon's mission
was to take the crater of Suribachi's peak and raise the U.S. flag. As a
member of the first combat patrol to scale Mount Suribachi, Cpl Lindberg
took his 72-pound flamethrower and started the tortuous climb up the
rough terrain to the top.
As they reached the top, the patrol members took positions around
the crater watching for pockets of enemy resistance as other members of
the patrol looked for something on which to raise the flag. Present at
the crest were six Marines of a 40-man patrol. They were 1LT Lieutenant
Schrier, Sergeant Thomas, Sergeant Hansen, Private First Class Charlo,
Private First Class Michels, and Corporal Charles W. Lindberg.
At approximately 10:20 a.m., the flag was hoisted on a steel pipe
above the island. The sight of the small American flag flying from atop
Mount Suribachi thrilled men all over the island. And for the first time
during WWII, an American flag was flying above what was considered
traditional Japanese territory. This symbol of victory sent a wave of
strength to the battle-weary fighting men below, and struck a further
mental blow against the island's defenders.
Marine Corps photographer Sergeant Lou Lowery captured this first
flag raising on film just as the enemy hurled a grenade in his
direction. Dodging the grenade, Lowery hurled his body over the edge of
the crater and tumbled 50 feet. His camera lens was shattered, but he
and his film were safe.
As Cpl Lindberg would later remark, "Suribachi was easy to
take; it was getting there that was so hard!" Of the 40-man patrol,
thirty-six were killed or wounded in later fighting on Iwo Jima
including Lindberg himself who would be shot through the stomach and arm
a week later on 1 March, 1945. For his heroism Lindberg would receive
the Purple Heart and Silver Star Medal with the citation reading in
"Repeatedly exposing himself to hostile grenades and
machine-gun fire in order that he might reach and neutralize enemy
pill-boxes at the base of Mount Suribachi, Corporal Lindberg
courageously approached within ten or fifteen yards of the emplacements
before discharging his weapon, thereby assuring the annihilation of the
enemy and the successful completion of this platoon's mission. While
engaged in an attack on hostile cave positions on March 1, he fearlessly
exposed himself to accurate enemy fire and was subsequently wounded and
As part of that Marine group, 24-year-old Corporal Charles Lindberg, a combat veteran of the Guadalcanal and the Bougainville campaign, watched the intense bombardment of Iwo Jima and realized that the landing at Red Beach One would be anything but easy. "The Japs had the whole beach zeroed in. Most of the fire was coming from Suribachi," he recalled. Surrounding Mount Suribachi were cliffs, tunnels, mines, booby traps, and ravines. The hostile terrain proved to be as tough an enemy as the Japanese who were firmly entrenched on the mountain.
At 8 a.m. on February 23, a patrol of 40 men from 3rd Platoon, E Company, 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, led by 1LT Lieutenant Harold G. Schrier, assembled at the base of Mount Suribachi. The platoon's mission was to take the crater of Suribachi's peak and raise the U.S. flag. As a member of the first combat patrol to scale Mount Suribachi, Cpl Lindberg took his 72-pound flamethrower and started the tortuous climb up the rough terrain to the top.
As they reached the top, the patrol members took positions around the crater watching for pockets of enemy resistance as other members of the patrol looked for something on which to raise the flag. Present at the crest were six Marines of a 40-man patrol. They were 1LT Lieutenant Schrier, Sergeant Thomas, Sergeant Hansen, Private First Class Charlo, Private First Class Michels, and Corporal Charles W. Lindberg.
At approximately 10:20 a.m., the flag was hoisted on a steel pipe above the island. The sight of the small American flag flying from atop Mount Suribachi thrilled men all over the island. And for the first time during WWII, an American flag was flying above what was considered traditional Japanese territory. This symbol of victory sent a wave of strength to the battle-weary fighting men below, and struck a further mental blow against the island's defenders.
Marine Corps photographer Sergeant Lou Lowery captured this first flag raising on film just as the enemy hurled a grenade in his direction. Dodging the grenade, Lowery hurled his body over the edge of the crater and tumbled 50 feet. His camera lens was shattered, but he and his film were safe.
As Cpl Lindberg would later remark, "Suribachi was easy to take; it was getting there that was so hard!" Of the 40-man patrol, thirty-six were killed or wounded in later fighting on Iwo Jima including Lindberg himself who would be shot through the stomach and arm a week later on 1 March, 1945. For his heroism Lindberg would receive the Purple Heart and Silver Star Medal with the citation reading in part:
"Repeatedly exposing himself to hostile grenades and machine-gun fire in order that he might reach and neutralize enemy pill-boxes at the base of Mount Suribachi, Corporal Lindberg courageously approached within ten or fifteen yards of the emplacements before discharging his weapon, thereby assuring the annihilation of the enemy and the successful completion of this platoon's mission. While engaged in an attack on hostile cave positions on March 1, he fearlessly exposed himself to accurate enemy fire and was subsequently wounded and evacuated."
Excerpted from: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/iwoflag.htm
"I was just wondering, having just read a book about WWII, about the actual effectiveness of flamethrowers, and air-dropped napalm, on armoured vehicles.>
Supposedly in the early stages of the Korean war,
napalm was the only allied weapon that would reliably destroy enemy
tanks. Often, a considerably amount of fire would get into the vehicle
through various apertures, and air was removed the same way. Rubber road
wheels add to the conflagration, and many Soviet design tanks also
carried spare fuel in drums or Jerries outside the tank; after a while,
this would brew up. Quite apart from the tyres burning and melting,
burning napalm in the engine air intakes could kill the engine, and the
wall of fire would totally cut off visibility. So even if no flame agent
has entered the tank, you have an immobilised, blind tank, with the crew
inside packed like sardines, where it is gradually getting harder to
breathe, and hotter and hotter... Nasty. Modern tanks generally have
some form of NBC protection which makes them immune to the entry of
flame agents (unless a hatch was open at the time, unlucky) and removal
of air. They carry less flammable stuff outside, and engine air intakes
are better protected. Also, they are often much heavier, so (together
with less fuel outside) it would take much more napalm to heat them up
to a dangerous point. Still, they would be blinded and the engine might
stall. Oh, BTW, many IS AFVs have pretty formidable external fire
extinguishers, too. We all hear about how horrible it is, etc, and
so it's reasonably obvious that it has a great psychological effect, and
it's also safe to assume that any unprotected soldier hit by
burning in liquid will probably die, but how well does this work
against, for instance, soft vehicles such as jeeps, All that nasty
stuff I said for older tanks, goes double for jeeps. I would think about
triple for Hummers, with all those plastic panels and light alloy stuff.
or maybe pillboxes? The fuel is a very thick liquid, and comes out of a
flamethrower in a rod like water from a hose. With a pillbox, the idea
is to hose the burning fuel through a firing slit. If you do that,
they're history inside. Even if you only get close, the fuel splatters,
some might splash inside and the rest will obscure the occupants vision.
Also don't underrate the psychological effect. If you have a choice
between burning or surrendering, most people surrender. Even the
Japanese in WWII, who otherwise usually fought to the death, generally
surrendered if a flamethrower was brought up to their bunker (and they
couldn't stop it, etc etc). An interesting corollary to this is that
anyone identified as a flamethrower becomes the number one target on the
battlefield. This is a bummer for him because his weapon is usually
quite easy to identify even at some distance. The Soviets seem to have
been the only army who took some trouble to disguise flamethrowers as
LMGs (with pushbutton ignition instead of an incendiary ignition
cartridge, to avoid that telltale tongue of fire near the "flash
Terrified South Vietnamese children, including Kim Phuc (center), fled from the scene of an aerial attack of napalm, which became a symbol for the horrors of war. Associated Press file photo, 1972, by Nick Ut
The girl survived, after 17 operations. Napalm didn't. As of today, the Pentagon says it is gone from the U.S. arsenal. Napalm, a syrupy kind of jellied gasoline, was used in Vietnam to burn forests and villages and people, without discrimination. It burned through everything, at more than 5,000 degrees, and it stuck to people and then burned some more, sometimes down to the bone.
Asked why the military seems to be discarding napalm as a weapon, a Navy spokesman said "there are more modern and efficient means to use in war these days than napalm."
The Navy, which has stored 34,515 canisters of napalm at Fallbrook since 1973, is emphasizing the environmental aspects of this recycle operation, providing detail upon detail of how the stuff will be broken down into components and it won't leak and it won't blow up (it is safe without detonating devices.)
In Vietnam Armoured Cavalry Battalions (Squadrons) had four M132
vehicles with the HQ
and HQ Company (Troop)
Operating from fixed bases and moored ships, the Brown Water Navy existed as Mobile Task Force 115, 116, and 117. The task forces had a commom command center and had groups under Task Force 194, but their boats were spread out over South Vietnam, creating a hodge-podge of interoperating units and commands. Task Force 116 was the River Patrol Force and mainly operated the PBR patrol boats. Task Force 117 was the Mobile Riverine Force and operated jointly with the Army's 9th Infantry Division in modified WWII landing craft. During the course of the war the Brown water navy tried many different designs with some success and failures. Only one design was built from the ground up; the rest were modifications of existing civilian and military designs and were adapted to fit a certain mission.
The older landing craft designs were the first types, and they served throughout the war with two main types used. Both carried dual-hardness steel designed to stop .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds fired at a 20 meter (about 60 feet) range. The "Mike" or monitor boats weer heavily armed floating tanks. Sometimes weighing 75 tons, the Mike was slow and unweildy but was very difficult to sink and contained a massive level of firepower, ranging from M-16's and M-79 grenade launchers to automatic grenade launchers, turreted flamethrowers, and 81mm mortars fitted to fire directly at targets instead of the conventional high arc.. The other boat was the "Tango" or troop carrying boat. While not as heavily armed as the Mike boats the Tango could carry troops, and was often seen patroling with members of Army's 9th infantry division or Navy SEALs.
A U.S. flamethrower operated in Vietnam during Operation New Castle -- the weight and size of the fuel tanks made the soldier extremely vulnerable to enemy fire, and troops had to be assigned to protect him.
were again used operationally by Australian troops on several occasions
during the war in South Vietnam.
The fighting around Fire Support
Bases Coral and Balmoral, for
example, saw assault pioneers use flamethrowers
to successfully subdue Viet Cong bunkers. Not only were they used on
foot but on one occasion, from the rear deck of a Centurion Armoured
Flame tanks of the 1st (US) Tank Battalion attacked No-name Village, in the Quang Ngai province of Vietnam, during Operation Doser.
M2A1-7 was the last man-pack flamethrower to be listed on the
Australian Army's inventory. By late 1987, with local stocks of
spare parts running low and additional parts no longer available
from the United States, the type was declared obsolete. A few
were retained on an official basis for museums such as the
infantry and engineer museums but the majority were scrapped.
Despite its demonstrated effectiveness and some rumours about purchasing the M2A9 version, there is apparently no intention at this time to re-introduce a man-pack flamethrower into the Australian Army.Written by Mike Cecil. Published in Army Magazine June 1995
The flamethrower continued to be used in Vietnam where Viet Cong use of tunnels created the same problems as Japanese caves in World War II. The flamethrower was also effective in offensive operations against buildings made of dried materials.
The M9A1-7 and other flamethrowers have been replaced by the M202A1 Incendiary Rocket launcher.
AFGHANISTANFire When Ready
Why we should consider using flamethrowers in Afghanistan.
By Scott Shuger
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2001,
There aren’t any news cameras trained on the caves of Afghanistan, but you can still watch U.S. soldiers battle an enemy hiding in underground tunnels and bunkers: Go rent Sands of Iwo Jima. The 1949 John Wayne classic incorporates actual combat footage of Marines attacking Japanese forces ensconced, à la the Taliban, in caves and other fortified underground positions, many of them linked by tunnels. On the Pacific island of Iwo Jima, the central command post was 75 feet below the island’s volcanic rock. On nearby Okinawa, the Japanese fought from several belts of caves and bunkers as well as from thousands of ancestral tombs. What was the weapon that enabled the Marines to take the fight in and down to an enemy this entrenched? As you can see in the movie, it was the flamethrower, which shoots a column of splattering fire that can penetrate viewing slits and air ducts and even kill around corners.
Recent news reports have said that Osama Bin Laden has access to caves that are electrified, multistoried, and steel-fortified. So we’re prepared to use flamethrowers to clear them out, right? On several occasions, President Bush has said of the terrorists, “We’re going to smoke them out of their holes.” But why settle for smoke when there’s fire?
Well, there’s a little problem. That John Wayne movie is about the only place you can see flamethrowers these days because the U.S. military doesn’t have them anymore. Though flamethrowers were in use as recently as the Vietnam War, none of our service branches has any in their inventory now. (None of the experts and old Army hands interviewed for this story knew exactly when they were eliminated.) The field manual used by the Army and Marines states that “flame is a valuable close combat weapon” that can be “used to demoralize troops and reduce positions that have resisted other forms of attack,” but the manual dropped detailed descriptions of flamethrower tactics in the early 1990s. A 66 mm man-portable rocket launcher that fires an incendiary round is still on the books, but most experienced U.S. military folks contacted this past week weren’t familiar with it. (One retired Army officer did remember that “years ago” the rocket was used at a U.S. base in a demonstration for visitors. He says such a fire rocket would be “dandy” for caves.) As the Afghan war bogs down against opponents willing to literally go underground, one very promising U.S. weapon for going after them is missing in action.
Why? Primarily because, among civilians, fire weapons are considered inhumane. The fuel for flamethrowers is basically napalm, and napalm has never recovered from its Vietnam reputation for awfulness. (Indeed, in 1978 the Defense Department unilaterally decided to stop using it.) Because flamethrowers spew jellied fuel that sticks to skin and clothes, the fire they produce is extremely difficult to put out. As a result, they often inflict second- and third-degree burns all over the body. Even if your skin isn’t burned to a crisp, you may well suffocate (the fire sucks oxygen from the air), or inhale fire and poisonous gases, or die from shock. Nevertheless, the United States has never officially sworn off flamethrowers. And there’s no good reason that it should.
They are not banned by the generally accepted rules of warfare. The Army’s Judge Advocate General School—which speaks for the legal branch of the Army—has concluded that fire weapons, including flamethrowers, are not illegal per se or by treaty, and the Army and Marine Corps field manuals flatly state that “their use is not a violation of international law.” Law professor Robert K. Goldman of American University, whose expertise includes the rules of war, agrees: “You can’t directly use them against civilians or use them indiscriminately in a way that’s likely to create civilian casualties, but they are not banned as such.”
That a weapon inflicts horrible deaths and injuries shouldn’t by itself rule out its use. It would be foolish to deny that the effects of flamethrowers and other fire weapons are gruesome. But such ghastliness can also be attributed to cluster bombs (which can leave thousands of limb- and torso-destroying bomblets lying about dormant for years, and which the United States has already used in Afghanistan) and land mines (which the United States has refused to foreswear), not to mention artillery, mortars, or machine guns, which are used by every military force in the world. The test of whether a weapon should be used (at all or in a given circumstance) isn’t its horribleness—they’re all horrible—it’s how well it can help attain a military objective while not producing political or human-rights problems. So for instance, tactical nuclear weapons might be the ideal military solution to the al-Qaida cave problem, but they should be ruled out because they would also run the risk of killing and injuring too many noncombatants and stimulating further uses of nuclear weapons. Flamethrowers would, by contrast, target only the terrorists in the caves. In addition, the Marine and Army field manuals note that often, when flamethrowers are seen being deployed, “defending personnel will leave well-prepared positions and risk exposure to other weapons or capture.” In other words, flamethrowers might even save some terrorists’ lives because they would rather give up than be burned alive. (And some of those we grab may in fact end up telling us where Bin Laden is.)
That a weapon has an image problem shouldn’t by itself be dispositive either. Most U.S. soldiers think napalm is militarily viable, but most also think the United States abandoned it because it was associated in the popular mind with inflicting tremendous suffering on the civilian population of Vietnam—via such famous images as that wrenching picture of the young screaming girl running naked down the road. But although in Vietnam napalm was used irresponsibly on civilians, it is not inherently dangerous to them. There is a difference between a weapon’s essential properties and its possible right or wrong uses. To think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that pistols should be banned because one was used in that equally famous Vietnam photo of the South Vietnamese officer shooting a Vietcong prisoner in the head.
Flamethrowers are no more objectionable than other weapons the United States stocks and is probably prepared to use in Afghanistan. During the Gulf War, the U.S. military employed fuel-air explosives, which work by suspending a fine mist of fuel over a large area and then blowing it up. Typically these are dropped from planes, and like other fire weapons, if the flame itself doesn’t kill you, the lack of oxygen will.
Now, I’m not claiming to know that the flamethrower is the key missing piece of the United States’ tactical puzzle in Afghanistan. But let’s just be sure that it’s not ruled out for the wrong reasons. In fighting this new war, we have to rethink our choices so thoroughly that we are even open to using old-fashioned weapons
MARINE CORPS EYES PORTABLE THERMOBARIC WARHEAD FOR URBAN OPS
By Malina Brown
Naval researchers are developing a portable version of the thermobaric bombs employed to clear caves and bunkers in Afghanistan for the Marine Corps to use in urban combat.
Thermobaric weapons are fuel-rich explosives that suck air from its target, creating a lethal combination of heat and pressure that burns longer than conventional explosives. The weapons are effective on hardened, underground facilities, which are among the most difficult targets to eliminate.
Scientists and engineers at Indian Head, MD-based Naval Surface Warfare Center are fabricating a thermobaric warhead that can operate with the shoulder-mounted multipurpose assault weapon. According to a statement from Naval Sea Systems Command, the Marines were so impressed with the success of thermobaric weapons used in Operation Enduring Freedom that they approached the Indian Head researchers and requested a shoulder-mounted version of their own.
The Marines expect to receive the shoulder-mounted thermobaric arms in the near term, according to Maj. Thomas Bowers, the infantry requirements officer in the materials division at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. In “definitely less than a year” the warheads should be in the hands of some Marines, though it is not slated to go out to every unit, Bowers told Inside the Navy last week.
Thermobaric weapons were rushed into service to destroy the underground targets in the war in Afghanistan. In October, the Pentagon accelerated numerous advanced concept technology demonstrations, including a concept designed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and NSWC that led to the thermobaric warhead. After a rapid two-month development period, the resulting BLU-118B was proven ready for war when it performed successfully in a Dec. 14 test against a mock tunnel.
The BLU-118B, integrated into a laser-guided missile launched from an F-15 aircraft, was subsequently used in air strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan.
To develop the shoulder-mounted warhead, Indian Head researchers formed a team with NSWC Dahlgren and private industry. The project recently concluded phase one, which included integrating the PBXIH-135 explosive into a shoulder-mounted warhead, redesigning the fuse interfaces, as well as booster and warhead case design.
Phase two will involve completing safety certification and initial weapons production.
The most obvious advantage of the shoulder-mounted version of the thermobaric weapon is its increased potential for accuracy, given that they are launched from a closer range. Man-portable warheads can be used with “greater precision than air-dropped munitions and can provide immediate direct support on the battlefield,” according to John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, DC-based defense policy group.
Pike added that the Marines, which already have several different shoulder-mounted assault weapons, could use this warhead to provide additional “specialized anti-emplacement capabilities.”
Aside from using the warheads in such confined spaces as caves, tunnels and bunkers, the Marines plan to use the thermobaric weapons on urban structures, including buildings and sewers, said Bowers. Thermobaric warheads “tend to have more enhanced blast effects,” said Bowers, leading to the blast of multiple rooms from one explosion, a decisive advantage over conventional weapons.
While the warhead is being developed particularly for the Marines, Pike said the Army “will almost certainly want to evaluate something like this, assuming that it proves feasible and effective.”
Furthermore, the Pentagon is looking into other potential applications for the warhead, including use against chemical and biological weapons sites. Conventional explosives are considered problematic against chem-bio agents because they can inadvertently spread the same dangerous agents the attack is intended to destroy. Thermobaric weapons, on the other hand, could avoid this threat by incinerating the deadly agents on impact.
Despite its tactical advantages, the thermobaric weapons program is not without controversy. There is concern that in making these warheads more portable, they will also be more accessible to terrorists who could obtain the warhead for use against the United States.
Moreover, a similar weapon employed by the Russians during battles in Chechnya resulted in the unintentional deaths of many civilians. Thermobaric weapons have been reported as causing crushing injuries such as concussions, collapsed lungs, internal hemorrhaging and eardrum ruptures. The warhead has “caught the public's imagination,” Pike said, leading many to call it inhumane.
“As it stands, these thermobaric weapons have generated a fair amount of public misunderstanding, and have been made out to be a peculiarly horrible means of killing people,” Pike told ITN last week. “If it turned out that in practice the primary effect was indeed incendiary, there might be some problems under the international laws of armed conflict.”
Flamethrowers and incendiary grenades are currently illegal under the Geneva Conventions when used on civilians, civilian property or on military targets near civilian populations.
Bowers dismissed the comparison of thermobaric arms to flame weapons, saying the media has misrepresented the weapon.
It is “not a fuel-air explosive,” he said, which works by igniting a volatile fuel or explosive powder.
Even without controversy, the Marine Corps is not necessarily committed to using thermobaric weapons in the future, said Bowers. The shoulder-mounted thermobaric warhead was a short-term approach to address a November 2001 “urgent universal needs statement,” Bowers explained, which required an immediate means to deal with confined spaces, such as those found in Afghanistan. While they had existing munitions that could clear such spaces, Bowers said they “wanted one that could do it better.”
As for a long-term solution, Bowers said the Marines are not fixed on thermobaric weapons or even a SMAW warhead. The Marines want to “open up the playing field” and “look at the world beyond thermobaric weapons at whatever types of systems would give the best clearing capability,” said Bowers.
Therefore, while the Marines' short-term solution was to have thermobaric weapons “on the shelf,” said Bowers, the Marines are definitely “not tied to thermobarics” in the future.
© Copyright 2002 Inside the Navy
Wake up: We have let incompetent, obsessed civilians drag us into a ruinous war
The headline in the New York Times celebrating the recent Iraqi election in which 3 million people voted in spite of terrorist threats evoked the memory of the headline, “U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83 percent Turnout Despite Viet Cong Terror,” (New York Times, Sept. 4, 1967).
No similarities between Vietnam and Iraq? Think again. Except this time it’s worse — much worse.
In the 15-year undeclared war in Vietnam, we were up against the intractable force of just one “ism” — nationalism — wherein Gen. Giap and Ho Chi Minh vowed to fight to the last man after decades of colonization and occupation by a foreign power.
And it certainly didn’t help our efforts to “win hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese by adopting a war policy akin to weeding a flower garden with a bull dozer and flamethrowers.
Even though we killed 1,106,000 North Vietnamese army/ Viet Cong combatants and lost only 58,202 lives, we lost this war.
Jumping ahead to 2003, we find our recipe for war has been revised. It now includes the potent “isms” of clan and tribe, a heaping portion of religious fanaticism, and for good measure, a ton of our own self-deception and arrogance. Small wonder we find ourselves wedged into the vortex of a military, political and cultural “perfect storm” of mega-proportion in Iraq — all of our own doing. Our ship is taking on water and there’s no end to the storm in sight. And we are losing this war, not through the conduct of our troops who are performing admirably and bravely, and are after all, just following their orders, but because of the utter ineptitude of the civilian planners who have placed them in harm’s way.
The Bible says, “make war with wisdom,” if war cannot be avoided. Pre-emptive war is not mentioned in the Scriptures — and for good reason.
The Prussian general, Carl Von Clausewitz, wrote “On War” in the early 1800s, part of which reads as follows: “War is a continuation of politics, a policy by other means. No one starts a war — no one in his sense ought to do so — without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
Many factors combined to push us down the greased slope of Iraq but I would like to gnaw on only four. They are: The Messianic Presidency, Cooking the Intelligence, Rumsfeld’s Follies and Neocons — Dumb and Dumber.
The definition of messianism, is: “The belief that a cause is absolutely right.”
By all accounts, the civilian “true believers” in the front office of the Pentagon and in President Bush’s White House never sought opposing viewpoints to their war plans — “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us” — is standard operating procedure with this group. In the lead-up to the invasion, Secretary of State Colin Powell met privately with the president, patiently outlining the myriad problems facing an occupying power in a hostile country using the phrase, “You break it — you own it.” George W. didn’t get it.
This bunch of mischief makers never entertained “worst possible scenario” questions that a uniformed military commander would have required of his staff before initiating an operation of this scale. “Don’t confuse me with facts — my head’s all made up” fits well here.
The late Eric Hoffer, this great nation’s self-educated, longshoreman– philosopher, had this to say about the combination of absolute power and absolute faith (he also authored a book aptly titled, “The True Believer”).
“There are similarities between absolute power and absolute faith; a demand for absolute obedience, a readiness to attempt the impossible, a bias for simple solutions, the viewing of compromise as surrender, the tendency to manipulate people and experiment with blood. Both absolute power and absolute faith are instruments of dehumanization. Hence, absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”
In June, 2003, Bush, while speaking with then–Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, was quoted in part as saying: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”
On a recent Larry King interview with Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist recounted a conversation he had had with Bush during the run-up to the war. Robertson (a former Marine), asked of the president how he was preparing the public for the casualties we would suffer. The reply was, “There won’t be any casualties.”
Messianic? Delusional? It really doesn’t matter. Somehow, we’ve allowed a chief executive — whose business expertise includes trading away Sammy Sosa — to clandestinely maneuver and then unilaterally plunge our beloved nation into a lose-lose guerrilla war in the Middle East.
A former Marine and a high school teacher for 23 years, Dan Stupka is a member of Association of National Security Alumni. He lives in Asheville.
From: Citizens Times Page
Crime & Corruption
Title: About 200 weapons seized from north
About 200 weapons seized from north Phoenix home
Nearly 200 weapons have been recovered from inside a north Phoenix home.
A six month investigation culminated today with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Phoenix Police Department raiding the home.
Anthony Rezek, 49, and Shirley McClean, 50, were arrested. ATF special agent Tom Mangan says the weapons and ammo list like a supply sheet for a military unit in combat.
The weapons consist of machine guns, 50-caliber machine guns, Uzi machine guns, vintage Thompson machine guns, pistol revolvers and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
This message is available on the Internet at http://www.WantToKnow.info/050708nonlethalweapons
July 8, 2005
A sophisticated non-lethal crowd control weapon has been successfully used against demonstrators, as reported by one of Canada's leading newspapers, the Toronto Star (article & link provided below). Most people have not heard of an important category of weapons which have been under secret development for decades, called non-lethal weapons. In top secret projects, a wide range of these high-tech weapons have been tested and refined. For a brief summary of the history and development of non-lethal weapons with footnotes for verification, see www.WantToKnow.info/mindcontrol10pg#nonlethal
The military has a vast arsenal of top secret weapons which are rarely ever reported in the mainstream media. In fact, for reasons of "national security," the military can prevent the media from reporting on these weapons. For other concise information on this important subject, click here, here, and here. For reliable, verifiable information on other secret government programs which have flourished since the 1950s, see our Mind Control Information Center. By educating ourselves and our friends and colleagues, we can join in calling for greater transparency in government and working together for a brighter future.
unleash Scream at protest
JERUSALEM—The knees buckle, the brain aches, the stomach turns. And suddenly, nobody feels like protesting anymore.
Such is the impact of the Scream, the latest weapon in the Israeli army's high-technology toolkit.
Launched Friday afternoon near the West Bank village of Bil'in, after another in the almost daily demonstrations against Israel's controversial security barrier turned violent, Israel's secret weapon lived up to its billing, by most accounts.
Witnesses describe a minute-long blast of sound emanating from a white Israeli military vehicle. Within seconds, protestors began falling to their knees, unable to maintain their balance.
An Israeli military source, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the Scream, or Tze'aka in Hebrew, in an interview yesterday.
"The intention is to disperse crowds with sound pulses that create nausea and dizziness," the Israel Defence Force spokesperson told the Toronto Star.
"It is probably the cleanest device we have ever had, when you compare it to rubber bullets or tear gas. It is completely non-lethal. It has no adverse effects, unless someone is exposed to the sound for hours and hours."
IDF officials said the technology was researched and developed over a span of five years as a result of "lessons learned" during the Israeli army's withdrawal from Lebanon.
"We had a situation during the Lebanon withdrawal where we had hundreds of people storming IDF positions," a military source said. "As a direct result, it was decided we needed the means for a more benign way to control crowds."
Army officials said the Scream might become an element in its strategy against Jewish settlers and their supporters in August, when the Israeli government begins uprooting 25 settlements in the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.
"We will use what we need to use during the disengagement, depending on the circumstances on the ground," the official said. "Nobody can foretell the future."
The IDF is saying little about the science behind the Scream, citing classified information. But the technology is believed to be similar to the LRAD — Long-Range Acoustic Device — used by U.S. forces in Iraq as a means of crowd control.
Hillel Pratt, a professor of neurobiology specializing in human auditory response at Israel's Technion Institute, likens the effect of such technologies to "simulated seasickness."
"It doesn't necessarily have to be a loud sound. The combination of low frequencies at high intensities, for example, can create discrepancies in the inputs to the brain," said Pratt.
"Basically, the brain receives a signal that your body has lost balance. You feel like you are tilting even when you are not. The discrepancies can cause headaches and nausea."
Pratt said such phenomena sometimes occur by accident. He remembers one instance in which office staff at an Israeli bank building fell ill after the installation of an industrial air conditioning unit.
"When everyone became nauseous, tests were conducted to find a contaminant. But nothing was found. Finally, acoustic tests were conducted, and a certain low-frequency sound was discovered," said Pratt. "It made people sick, all because of the way the noise of the new air conditioner resonated in that particular space."
Israeli and Palestinian activists are unsure what to make of the IDF's new machine. Some who were witness to the deployment on Friday said Palestinians have already learned to neutralize the Scream by stuffing cotton in their ears.
"Just before the sounds began, a Palestinian man I know from Bil'in gave me cotton for my ears. He said, `The Israelis are going to make a noise. This will help,'" said Lisa Nessan, an International Solidarity Movement activist from Ramallah.
"How did he know to do that? Obviously it must have been used at a previous demonstration. Or the Palestinians wouldn't have been prepared for it this time.
"I was lucky because the cotton seemed to filter out the problem. But I saw other people around me sit down because they couldn't keep their balance. I really don't know what to make of it. I've never seen anything like it before."
Arik Asherman, a leader of Rabbis For Human Rights, was cautiously optimistic the Scream could make a positive difference.
"We've been arguing for years that Israel should engage non-lethal approaches to crowd control. If this thing actually works without doing any permanent damage, that's a step forward."
But Asherman said Israeli officials would be wise to use the Scream sparingly, lest it become a tool to "sanitize dissent."
"We need to remind ourselves the problem is not the demonstrations, but what the demonstrations are about," he said.
"If this makes it any more difficult for Palestinians to express themselves in a non-violent way, that is problematic. The best way to disperse demonstrations is to deal with the actual issues.