On White Phosphorus and Fallujah [Archive]

View Full Version : On White Phosphorus and Fallujah

Nbadan

11-11-2005, 04:42 AM

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0511/f8f743175b9adc5e288e.jpeg

US Army Article Confirms White Phosphorous Use In Fallujah

A March '05 publication by the US Army confirms that US soldiers used white phosphorus offensively in the Battle of Fallujah. This directly contradicts statements made by the U.S. Department of Defense and by the US State Department.

The new discovery also backs up the allegations made in an Italian documentary screened this week concerning the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah. (See… http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00143.htm )

The broadcast shows video of a U.S. helicopter repeatedly raining down a bombardment of white phosphorus across Fallujah at night. The U.S. State Department had previously released a statement categorically denying all use of white phosphorus during the battle of Fallujah except for illumination purposes. This confirms several firsthand reports from news sources at the time of the invasion.

In the video, Jeff Englehart, a Marine who served in Fallujah and who maintains a weblog at http://www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com , claims that there was widespread, indicriminate use of white phosphorus in last year's attack on Fallujah.

The white phosphorus hits and disperses into an indiscriminately lethal cloud with a kill zone approximately a quarter of a mile wide -- over a tenth of a mile in all directions. Although white phosphorus often has no effect on clothes, when it makes contact with a person's skin, it will burn it down to the bone. If the gas is inhaled, it will blister the throat and lungs, causing rapid suffocation, burning the body from the inside.

Englehart heard officers approve requests for use of white phosphorus on a wide scale throughout the assault.

"It comes across the radio as a general transmission... we have speakers in our trucks. 'We're going to drop some Willy Pete.' 'Roger. Commence bombing'"

"We were told going into Fallujah that every single person going into the combat area that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant. . . It seemed like just a massive killing of Arabs. It looked like just a massive killing. . . Burned bodies. Burned children. Burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0511/0980c78a426b5b40479e.jpeg

Englehart also reported that the invasion of Fallujah was intentionally delayed by the Bush administration until after the election.

"It's was definitely the case. Even in the military ranks, we knew what was going on. They told us..."

Here is the story on artillery use from the March/April edition of the US Army's "Field Artillery Magazine" :

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00185.htm

The relevant mentions of white phosphorous in the article:

The munitions we brought to this fight were . . . illumination
and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes."

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them
out."

What the article does not say, however, is that there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

This claim of "shake and bake" is further confirmed in a news article by an embedded journalist at the time.
(See...http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/ira... )

"Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused. . . they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

This directly contradicts a previous US State Department statement, (archived at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00186.htm ) , that WP was used "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes".

SWC Bonfire

11-11-2005, 09:33 AM

Imagine that, something that is on fire actually burning you.

The "chemical cloud", a.k.a. "smoke", if covers a 1/10th of a mile radius as claimed, would have different concentrations of smoke that decreased radically from the point of detonation, which is not on the ground. So, that number may hold true up in the air, but it is diffused somewhat by the time it hits the ground, if in fact a majority of the smoke ever does drift towards ground in gaseous form. More likely, it becomes like dust in the air and sifts out eventually, probably in a chemical form similar to potash, a.k.a. fertilizer.

Mr. Peabody

11-11-2005, 10:30 AM

SWC Bonfire

11-11-2005, 10:56 AM

Does the military know that this weapon is so ineffective and if so, why is it still being used? Just another example of government wasting money on shit that doesn't work.

Um, to light up areas at night so you can see what you're fighting, what it has always been used for? Is this a rhetorical question?

Addendum: This is the same thing as a rescue flare. They didn't mention that in the article. It is either written by someone who doesn't understand its use, or deliberately written to make it sound like Americans are pouring the equivalent of hot oil/greek fire on completely innocent and angelic people.

Marcus Bryant

11-11-2005, 11:00 AM

The US military is to be faulted for using lethal weaponry in a battle. I think I've heard it all now. I wish Bush would just declare that he's for legalizing gay marriage, has no problem with legal abortion and all that God stuff? Well he was just kidding about that. Maybe then his opponents would stop with the fucking stupidity.

That's what drives our politics today. If Bill C was in the White House most people wouldn't give two flips about what was going on in Iraq.

Useruser666

11-11-2005, 11:02 AM

What do you mean it doesn't work? WP was used not as it was orignally intended. It was adapted to a different role. I don't think most people understand how exactly it was being used. I don't take that as a big shocker that the DOD statements. Is that supposed to be a cover up or some kind of scandal? Pffft. That's like saying a trenching tool was used as a weaopn and the DOD said it was just used to dig a fox hole.

Mr. Peabody

11-11-2005, 11:13 AM

Um, to light up areas at night so you can see what you're fighting, what it has always been used for? Is this a rhetorical question?

Addendum: This is the same thing as a rescue flare. They didn't mention that in the article. It is either written by someone who doesn't understand its use, or deliberately written to make it sound like Americans are pouring the equivalent of hot oil/greek fire on completely innocent and angelic people.

See, I misunderstood its use from the wording in the article. I assumed it was a weapon.

Goddam liberal media!
________
ShemaleHottie18 cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/ShemaleHottie18)

Vashner

11-11-2005, 11:28 AM

Dan.. btw. Fallujah was a battle..

You know where people fight...

Why don't you STFU and let the troops do there job... no one needs your pansy ass
to join the Army or Marines.

Useruser666

11-11-2005, 12:04 PM

You can beat someone to death with a camera. All media should withdraw from Iraq NOW!!!

Nbadan

11-11-2005, 05:09 PM

The "chemical cloud", a.k.a. "smoke", if covers a 1/10th of a mile radius as claimed, would have different concentrations of smoke that decreased radically from the point of detonation, which is not on the ground. So, that number may hold true up in the air, but it is diffused somewhat by the time it hits the ground, if in fact a majority of the smoke ever does drift towards ground in gaseous form. More likely, it becomes like dust in the air and sifts out eventually, probably in a chemical form similar to potash, a.k.a. fertilizer.

A weapon that can be adapted to kill men, women, children and the elderly indiscriminately, and the wing-nuts support it 100%, imagine that.

Guess we found those WMD's after all.

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-11-2005, 07:40 PM

SWC Bonfire

11-14-2005, 09:57 AM

Maybe Dan doesn't understand the word "phosphorescent". :lol

It drops small chunks of phosphorous on innocent bystanders that happen to be outside in the middle of a gunfight/bombing raid. I can see the uproar, I mean, these people couldn't just get under, oh, I don't know, a tent.

xrayzebra

11-14-2005, 10:53 AM

A weapon that can be adapted to kill men, women, children and the elderly indiscriminately, and the wing-nuts support it 100%, imagine that.

Guess we found those WMD's after all.

Dan, you ever hear of WWII and Hamburg, Germany. Allied bombing killed
50,000 in one night in a firestorm created by that bombing. Wars really do
kill people. Always has, always will. So does chopping ones head off with
their hands tied behind their back. Or blowing ones self up and killing people at a wedding party. No one is immune to being killed in a war. We will, I am convinced, see it again here in the US. It just might be you or I.

Mr. Peabody

11-14-2005, 11:34 AM

Dan, you realize white phosphorous is used in flares, right? :lol

You ever seen a rescue flare? Same shit.

This is hilarious. This is tantamount to the chain email about the dangerous compound that can kill you... none other than hydrogen dioxide :lmao

The signal flares are coming, the signal flares are coming! Run for the hills.

BTW, kudos to pulling an Al Jazeera story, yet again, to try and run down the good Ol' US of mother fucking A.

I will admit that I do not know anything about weapons, as evidenced by my former post in this thread, but are phosphorous grenades weapons, or are they also used to help see in the dark?

I am not trying to bait anyone with this question. I have heard about phosphorous grenades and how bad they are, and I always assumed that they were used as weapons.
________
ROLL BLUNTS (http://howtorollablunt.net/)

Oh, Gee!!

11-14-2005, 11:43 AM

Peabody, you're such a pussy. Go back to pencil-pushing and let us men discuss war

Mr. Peabody

11-14-2005, 11:49 AM

Peabody, you're such a pussy. Go back to pencil-pushing and let us men discuss war

You don't even know wtf white phosphorous is Oh, Gee!

For all you know it's something that rappers wear on their teeth.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Oh, Gee!!

11-14-2005, 11:52 AM

I'll rap you!

Mr. Peabody

11-14-2005, 11:53 AM

I'll rap you!

Hiyoooooooh
________
VAPORIZERS (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

Useruser666

11-14-2005, 05:58 PM

I will admit that I do not know anything about weapons, as evidenced by my former post in this thread, but are phosphorous grenades weapons, or are they also used to help see in the dark?

I am not trying to bait anyone with this question. I have heard about phosphorous grenades and how bad they are, and I always assumed that they were used as weapons.

That is not the same thing. The use of the white phosphorus is the same as using a smoke grenade or flash bang to startle or confuse the enemy before you shoot them. It's not the same as napalm or an inciendiary device used specifically to kill. It's like shooting a big flare gun at people.

As a side note, the vapor or "smoke" produced by the WP is not great for you, but to compare it to a true chemical weapon is ridiculous. It's like calling a fart a chemical weapon.

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-14-2005, 07:44 PM

The only reason phosphorus grenades are associated with bad things is because usually right after they go off Delta Force, the Navy Seals, or the SAS bust down the door and cap all the asshole bad guys.

Hence = bad things.

RandomGuy

11-14-2005, 11:03 PM

Um, to light up areas at night so you can see what you're fighting, what it has always been used for? Is this a rhetorical question?

Addendum: This is the same thing as a rescue flare. They didn't mention that in the article. It is either written by someone who doesn't understand its use, or deliberately written to make it sound like Americans are pouring the equivalent of hot oil/greek fire on completely innocent and angelic people.

I would agree with this.

This kind of stuff generally sounds to me like someone who gets 1/2 of what is going on, lacks context and goes apeshit over something innocous.

RandomGuy

11-14-2005, 11:06 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as a smoke-screening agent and for target marking. It is also used as an incendiary weapon [1]. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP" or "white phos". The Vietnam War era slang Willie Pete or Wiley P is still occasionally heard.

Um, we were laying down *gasp* smoke screens?

HOLY SHIT!!!!

:rolleyes

Man, I wanted to make 100% sure that my memory of white phosphorous usage was correct before really calling the bullshit. I remember that WP was simply used as for concealment when moving around in urban areas.

The aim of WP is to screen friendly troop movement so they don't get fragged crossing open ground.

I think the idiots here are confusing smoke screens with the more nasty types of incindiaries.

RandomGuy

11-14-2005, 11:14 PM

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-14-2005, 11:32 PM

^^^^^^^ :lol Yeah, thanks for correcting me there. Fucking dyslexia...

I'm still cracking up about Nbadunce getting his panties in a bunch over the military firing off some roman candles and sparklers in Fallujah.

Chemical warfare... coming to you at a New Year's Eve family gathering near you :lmao

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 03:50 AM

Right, and we don't torture people either.

:rolleyes

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 15, 2005
The Guardian

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE . We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".
(snip/...)

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html?gusrc=rss)

Some people really need to get their heads out of the sand and get their facts straight.

:hat

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 09:40 AM

Nbadan, the "mixture" of phosphorous and high explosives are from different shells fired at different times, as mentioned in the prior article.

But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people.

Can you mention what the military should be using white phosphorous for if they don't use it against people? Sparklers/4th of July, perhaps? By that definition, a mortar round is a chemical weapon. Any bomb or even a barrell of gunpowder is a DEFINATELY chemical weapon by that definition. Moral of the story: that is a bullshit definition of chemical weapon, and you know it.

Marcus Bryant

11-15-2005, 11:20 AM

Assuming danny boy is correct, the US military used lethal weaponry in a war zone.

Shocking.

Useruser666

11-15-2005, 11:35 AM

Diesel is a chemical weapon because it powers the tanks that shoot people.

Deoderant is a chemical weapon because it allows troops to maintain a higher morale just before they shoot someone.

MREs are chemical weapons because they are turned into the energy needed to pull the trigger on a gun.

If a marine took a trenching tool (shovel) and killed an insurgent with it during a battle, is that a shocking use of an object that is not thought of as a lethal weapon? Yeah. Is it wrong? No!

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 02:50 PM

Can you mention what the military should be using white phosphorous for if they don't use it against people? Sparklers/4th of July, perhaps? By that definition, a mortar round is a chemical weapon. Any bomb or even a barrell of gunpowder is a DEFINATELY chemical weapon by that definition. Moral of the story: that is a bullshit definition of chemical weapon, and you know it.

A mortar shell can be directed as precisely as possible in order to try and prevent civilian casualties. This was not the case with these phosphorus shells. They kill, horribly the innocent and well as the guilty - that is a WMD in any war zone.

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 02:55 PM

I bet you wouldn't be able to find many people that have been killed by a phosphorous shell, if even one... how many people die every year by smoke caused by cigarettes? :lol

Is there one, single documented case of a white phosphorous shell being solely responsible for the death of its intended target?

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 03:01 PM

Here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml) is all the proof you need.

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 03:07 PM

Here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml) is all the proof you need.

How about something from a reputable news source, like the BBC? Official millitary reports? UN?

I also have pictures on my website showing Al Gore inventing the internet.

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 03:20 PM

I also have pictures on my website showing Al Gore inventing the internet.

Actually, Al Gore never said he invented the internet, but that's a completely other matter.

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 03:23 PM

How about something from a reputable news source, like the BBC? Official millitary reports? UN?

:lol

Yeah, like the military is gonna report something like this. I have posted links to documented accounts from US troops who were there, who personally witnessed these 'shake and bake' attacks.

So now the BBC is a reputable source again?

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 03:33 PM

^^More reputable than BeaversforGore.com, or JihadisCool.net

xrayzebra

11-15-2005, 03:33 PM

:lol

Yeah, like the military is gonna report something like this. I have posted links to documented accounts from US troops who were there, who personally witnessed these 'shake and bake' attacks.

So now the BBC is a reputable source again?

Same old BS, military are baby killers. Like I said in earlier post, you folks want to relive the VN war. Wars kill people. Why don't you tell us about
what the other side is doing. Or is it okay for them to kill people at a wedding or going to work. You know like sucker punching someone. Brave souls aren't they. At least we face them face-on.

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 04:05 PM

^^More reputable than BeaversforGore.com, or JihadisCool.net

:lol

Useruser666

11-15-2005, 04:13 PM

US Forces 'Used Chemical Weapons' during Assault on City of Fallujah
By Peter Popham
The Independent UK

Tuesday 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete."

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled "Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre," also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.

The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.

This story is totally filled with garbage. WP does not explode as compared to HE. It is not a chemical weapon at all. If a soldier drowns an insurgent in a river, is water a chemical weapon? That is no further a stretch than where you're taking this whole WP crap.

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 04:49 PM

Same old BS, military are baby killers. Like I said in earlier post, you folks want to relive the VN war. Wars kill people. Why don't you tell us about
what the other side is doing. Or is it okay for them to kill people at a wedding or going to work. You know like sucker punching someone. Brave souls aren't they. At least we face them face-on.

No, in this case the troops are on our side. It is because of them that this story is getting out AT ALL.

'I treated people who had their skin melted'
By Dahr Jamail
Published: 15 November 2005

<snip>

"They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud," he said. He had seen "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns".

<snip>

Burhan Fasa'a, a freelance cameraman working for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), witnessed the first eight days of the fighting. "I saw cluster bombs everywhere and so many bodies that were burnt, dead with no bullets in them," he said. "So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Jolan district."

<snip>

Some saw what they thought were attempts by the military to conceal the use of incendiary shells. "The Americans were dropping some of the bodies into the Euphrates near Fallujah," said one ousted resident, Abdul Razaq Ismail.

<snip>

He said he saw bulldozers push soil into piles and load it on to trucks to carry away. In certain areas where the military used "special munitions" he said 200 sq m of soil was being removed from each blast site.

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article327136.ece)

Look at the owners of the 'credible' M.S.M. and ask yourself why these stories aren't getting out...

# New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi

# Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's

# Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels

# The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo

# News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments

# GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble

# Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo

# Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America

# Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi

# AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton

Useruser666

11-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Uh, the problem is not that the story isn't getting out, it's that the story is wrong. The accusations and depictions don't make the slightest bit of sense. You seem to be skipping over that fact.

samikeyp

11-15-2005, 05:23 PM

It's like calling a fart a chemical weapon.

well...it depends on where you eat. :spin

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 05:34 PM

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Early this month, Italian state TV, Rai, said white phosphorus had been used against civilians in Falluja.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM programme that the US army used white incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said a statement on the US state department denying it had been used was old and based on "poor information".

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm)

See, it was a LEGAL chemical weapon that makes it A-OK. Okey dokey.

:hat

Useruser666

11-15-2005, 05:41 PM

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm)

See, it was a LEGAL chemical weapon that makes it A-OK. Okey dokey.

:hat

It's NOT a chemical weapon Dan, don't you get that?

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 05:41 PM

Dan, you are aware that the "dangerous gasses" released from the chemical reaction within a bomb are the cause of the damage that occurs, right?

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 05:48 PM

It's NOT a chemical weapon Dan, don't you get that?

It's not a chemical weapon because we say so? Nice logic.

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 05:50 PM

Rocks and sticks are not chemical weapons, unless you throw a rock that is made of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulfates and then set it on fire.

Useruser666

11-15-2005, 05:52 PM

It's not a chemical weapon because we say so? Nice logic.

It's not a chemical weapon just like a dog is not a cat. By definition and function, WP is not a chemical weapon. You are sinking deeper and deeper into a hole Dan.

Nbadan

11-15-2005, 06:06 PM

Rocks and sticks are not chemical weapons, unless you throw a rock that is made of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulfates and then set it on fire.

Oh, I get it, so botulism isn't a biological weapon either because it occurs naturally.

Wrong. The U.S. is the largest procurer of weapons in the world. New, crazy shit that will kill people instantly. Just because it hasn't been classified as a 'chemical weapon' or WMD yet doesn't mean it doesn't look, act, smell, and taste like a chemical weapon or WMD.

SWC Bonfire

11-15-2005, 06:12 PM

New, crazy shit that will kill people instantly.

Like white phosphorous. We stole the initial technology from the Chinese back at the turn of the millenium... as in 1000 AD.

1369

11-15-2005, 06:43 PM

MREs are chemical weapons

If you've ever had to eat a Meal Refused by Ethopians (sp?), you have no idea how true that statement is.

1369

11-15-2005, 06:56 PM

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm)

See, it was a LEGAL chemical weapon that makes it A-OK. Okey dokey.

:hat

I see your BBC and raise...

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.

Marcus Bryant

11-15-2005, 07:56 PM

No, in this case the troops are on our side. It is because of them that this story is getting out AT ALL.

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article327136.ece)

Look at the owners of the 'credible' M.S.M. and ask yourself why these stories aren't getting out...

# New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi

# Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's

# Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels

# The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo

# News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments

# GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble

# Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo

# Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America

# Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi

# AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton

Lemme guess, is that because those companies' pension plans hold positions in the equities of those firms?

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-15-2005, 09:03 PM

Dan, you are one dumb son of a bitch :lol

Useruser666

11-16-2005, 11:52 AM

Oh, I get it, so botulism isn't a biological weapon either because it occurs naturally.

Wrong. The U.S. is the largest procurer of weapons in the world. New, crazy shit that will kill people instantly. Just because it hasn't been classified as a 'chemical weapon' or WMD yet doesn't mean it doesn't look, act, smell, and taste like a chemical weapon or WMD.

In my analogy, a dog will NEVER be classified as a cat.

Extra Stout

11-16-2005, 12:24 PM

I guess next Dan will publish a shocking expose about how the U.S. army caused eye injuries by shining bright lights at people.

Vashner

11-16-2005, 12:29 PM

If they can't handle a little shake and bake then don't hang body's on a bridge.

I think the Neolib's attempt to smudge Fallujah battle is a HUGE gamble, it is to take on the core.

Extra Stout

11-16-2005, 12:47 PM

Carbon monoxide emissions from the Hummers can cause asphyxiation.

By Dan's definition, Hummers are WMD's.

spurster

11-17-2005, 04:49 PM

Some additional info:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/11/17/pentagon_says_it_used_phosphorus_in_fallujah_in_20 04/

Pentagon says it used phosphorus in Fallujah in 2004

By Will Dunham, Reuters | November 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon acknowledged yesterday that it used white phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, but said the weapon is legal and denied that the US military had targeted civilians with the highly flammable substance.

Pentagon officials said that US troops had employed it against insurgent strongholds as an incendiary weapon. But they continued to deny a report on Italian state television last week alleging that the munitions had been used against civilian men, women, and children in Fallujah, some of whom were burned to the bone.

...

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-17-2005, 07:33 PM

Today the US military revealed a new weapon it plans to use to bring mass destruction to heavily populated suburban areas, according to a new report from bastion of journalistic integrity Al Jazeera.

One of their cameramen was shoved by a member of the evil US Delta Forces, but was able to snap a picture of the new weapon before he was escorted away...

https://www.76wholesale.com/images/products/SM101.gif

RandomGuy

11-17-2005, 10:33 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor.

I watched almost all of the documentary given by Dan (I skipped the bit about the british MP that I thought was a bit boring)

I really didn't see much there that was some "smoking gun" that would cause me to say that the US military are indescriminate butchers. Honestly, if this is the best that anti-war people can do, it says more about the restraint of the US military than anything else.

The documentary showed people whose "skin was blackened" but whose clothes were miraculously untouched.

Being something of a history channel junkie, I watched a rather gruesome bit about the "body farm" that the FBI uses to study the natural decomposition of the human body.

Part of this natural process is a blackening of the corpse. That was pretty much exactly what I saw in some of those pictures. True, some of the dead bodies shown were obviously subjected to fire, as the surroundings were also burnt, but I get the feeling that no small amount of this documentary was civilians who didn't really know a lot about military affairs getting themselves worked up about death in a war zone. It happens.

One of the marines stated that he accidentally killed some civilians when they drove a car full speed towards his position (the civilians were fleeing fighting elsewhere) in the middle of a battle.

Tragic, yes. But should we be completely outraged that mistakes happen in a war zone?

I didn't see any evidence of "yellow colored" burns in the pictures either.

No small bit of that documentary had some less prosaic explanations than the "big bad US military" that they seemed to be trying for.

I will be the first to admit if we f*** up, but a lot of innocent people get killed in war, and that is regrettable. On the whole, the video didn't convince me that our military is guilty of anything other than fighting a war.

RandomGuy

11-17-2005, 10:37 PM

Addendum---The thing I think that really led me to not assign much weight to the video is the fact that it never once addressed what the insurgents have done to harm or put civilians in danger.

THAT is simple intellectual dishonesty.

Nbadan

11-18-2005, 11:44 AM

I'm surprised to see you blaming the victims Random...ST 100-3 Battle Book, July 1999: illegal to use against personnel

U.S. Army Command & General Staff College

4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

Fas.org (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm)

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-18-2005, 01:51 PM

Well good thing we didn't deploy them against personnel, we deployed them against buildings :lol

RandomGuy

11-18-2005, 10:34 PM

I'm surprised to see you blaming the victims Random...ST 100-3 Battle Book, July 1999: illegal to use against personnel

U.S. Army Command & General Staff College

Fas.org (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm)

Not at all. I just don't buy into blatant propaganda of any sort without thinking about what I am being told, and by whom. Professional skepticism.

There is some confusion here I think and that seems to be contributing to a bit of this.

There is a bit of a difference between WP smoke rounds and WP incindiary.

I don't doubt that the military used both in fallujah.

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem with using either. Any type of bomb will kill a lot of people, and the type doesn't phase me that much.

Nbadan

11-19-2005, 03:39 AM

I'm generally against the use of any type of incindiary weapon, I thought we had been through this debate with Naplam once before?

It's hard to ignore on which side the CGSC stands on the use of WP incindiary devices...

The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

The row has raged since last year when US troops cleared the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah during a two-week operation that resulted in the deaths of 50 US Marines and more than 1,200 insurgents. Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.

But military specialists said the "laws of land warfare" taught at the CGSC are the guidelines that the US Army teaches as general principles. The GCSC generally teaches officers of senior rank such as major and colonel. John Pike, of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "These are the general principles about proportionality, doctrine and so on and so forth.

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece)

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-19-2005, 12:15 PM

What's the big deal Dan? The Army doesn't use it. The Marines do. Tough shit.

I guess we should fight to the death with water guns and silly string.

What's the difference between a flash fire incinerating someone and bullets sawing someone in half?

Fuck, we used flame throwers extensively in WWII against the Japs, I don't see you with your panties in a bunch over that one.

Dos

11-19-2005, 05:00 PM

nevermind we nuked two japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians.... and allowed the russians to rape and kill innocent civilians all the way to berlin...

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-19-2005, 05:14 PM

It's really sad when you think about it. The left has been beaten down so severely that their rallying cry is sparklers and roman candles.

1369

11-19-2005, 07:16 PM

Cripes, if Dan and his parrots got their collective panties in a bunch over a freaking smoke grenade, I'd hate to see it when they learn that the Corps also uses shoulder fired thermobaric rockets to nuke houses that have bad guys in them.

Dos

11-20-2005, 10:47 PM

apparently we never signed on to the protocol banning the use of WP...

US defends use of white phosphorus

17.11.05 8.45am
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 counterinsurgency offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, but defended their use as legal.

Army Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the US military had not used the highly flammable weapons against civilians, contrary to an Italian state television report this month which said the weapons were used against men, women and children in Falluja who were burned to the bone.

"We categorically deny that claim," Venable said.

"It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon," added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman.

Venable said white phosphorus is not outlawed or banned by any convention. However, a protocol to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians or against military targets amid concentrations of civilians.

The United States did not sign the protocol.

White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the US military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon said. They are not considered chemical weapons. The substance ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 86°F (30°C), and its fire can be difficult to extinguish.

Useruser666

11-21-2005, 10:14 AM

This reminds me to start saving money for my new years firework display.

boutons

11-21-2005, 12:41 PM

The New York Times
November 21, 2005

U.S. Is Slow to Respond to Phosphorus Charges
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.

The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.

The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.

"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.

"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."

Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.

"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in Iraq, he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.

At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.

The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.

Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.

"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.

The State Department declined to comment for the record, but an official there said privately that the episode was a public relations failure.

The Italian documentary, titled "Falluja: The Hidden Massacre," included gruesome images of victims of the fierce fighting in the city in November 2004. American and Iraqi troops recaptured the city from insurgents, in battles that destroyed an estimated 60 percent of the buildings.

Opening with prolonged shots of Vietnamese children and villages burned by American use of napalm in 1972, the film suggested an equivalence between Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980's and the use of white phosphorus by the American-led forces.

It incorrectly referred to white phosphorus shells - a munition of nearly every military commonly used to create smoke screens or fires - as banned chemical weapons.

The film showed disfigured bodies and suggested that hot-burning white phosphorus had melted the flesh while leaving clothing intact. Sigfrido Ranucci, the television correspondent who made the documentary, said in an interview this month that he had received the photographs from an Iraqi doctor. "We are not talking about corpses like the normal deaths in war," he said.

Military veterans familiar with white phosphorus, known to soldiers as "W. P." or "Willie Pete," said it could deliver terrible burns, since an exploding round scatters bits of the compound that burst into flames on exposure to air and can burn into flesh, penetrating to the bone.

But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.

In their first comments after the Nov. 8 broadcast, American officials made some of those points. But they relied on an inaccurate State Department fact sheet first posted on the Web last December, when similar accusations first surfaced.

The fact sheet said American forces had used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes, and were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The Americans stuck to that position last spring after Iraq's Health Ministry claimed it had proof of civilian casualties from the weapons.

After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."

But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.

In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.

While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."

Ian Fisher contributed reporting from Rome for this article.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

boutons

11-23-2005, 02:58 PM

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2005/11/a_note_on_chemi.html#more

When Is a 'Chemical' Weapon Not a Chemical Weapon?

Reader Graham Bell offers a documentary contribution to the discussion of the U.S. military's use of white phosphorous, or WP, in Iraq last year, first reported earlier this month in the Italian RAI TV documentary "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" (in English.).

While a Pentagon spokesman said last week that WP munitions are conventional, not chemical, weapons, and thus not banned by a 1997 treaty, Bell notes the Defense Intelligence Agency had a different view in 1991.

In this April 1991 cable on Saddam Hussein's brutal offensive against Kurdish rebels, the DIA repeatedly describes white phosphorous as a chemical weapon. The report refers to "possible employment of phosphorous chemical weapons." It says the "WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds" and it says word of "possible WP chemical weapons attacks" prompted hundreds of thousands of Kurds to flee the area."

In Saddam Hussein's hands, at least, WP munitions were regarded as chemical weapons.

The document is found on "Gulf Link," a Pentagon Web site on "Gulf War Illnesses."

Nbadan

11-24-2005, 04:17 AM

More amateur footage from Fallujah Iraq (http://chris-floyd.com/fallujah/hospital.htm) you won't see on American TV

Nbadan

11-24-2005, 04:33 AM

Apparently, to the wing-nuts in the forum, WP is only a chemical weapon when Saddam uses it against the Kurds...

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE
IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) < (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) >< (b)(7)(D) >

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS --
A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE
THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
(U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON
ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND
DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE
TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO
THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS
ALONG
THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN
THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER,
AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

Link (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)

Hell, even Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00282.htm) has caught this lie

Nbadan

11-24-2005, 05:38 AM

Great article on this FROM the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1647716,00.html)...

Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

The insurgents, of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions? It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for the first world war will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it.

But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".

I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued: "The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."

But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets." It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians.

This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?

Aggie Hoopsfan

11-24-2005, 01:39 PM

Just wait til' we unleash the new 200 shot Saturn missile battery, then Al Jizzeera will really have something to cry about.

Vashner

11-24-2005, 02:50 PM

Just a couple assholes trying to make Fallujah battle look bad.

Fallujah was a great victory for U.S. military.

RandomGuy

11-25-2005, 05:23 PM