US troops used chemical weapons

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US troops used chemic

So you'll work to see the Americans responsible for the use of banned weapons brought to trial then, ITN?

 

[moghrabi]

US forces used 'chemical weapon' in Iraq
Published: 16 November 2005

The Pentagon has admitted US forces used white phosphorus as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Fallujah.

A Pentagon spokesman's comments last night appeared to contradict the US ambassador to London who said that American forces did not use white phosphorus as a weapon.

Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said that white phosphorus - which is normally used to lay smokescreens - was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said it probably would fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people.

A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Fallujah.

The report has been strenuously denied by the US, however Col Venable disclosed that it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.

"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he said on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme.

"We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

Asked directly if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Fallujah, he replied: "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".

He added: "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

However in a letter yesterday to The Independent, the US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, denied that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon.

"US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful conventional weapons against legitimate targets," he said.

"US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."

Col Venable said that a similar denial on the US State Department's website had been entered more than a year ago and was based on "poor information ".

Prof Rodgers said white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect".

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said later: " A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds.

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency.

"The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide."

The Shadow Foreign Secretary Liam Fox said on today's BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "Clearly there needs to be more openness coming from the Pentagon but the claims at the moment are just claims.

"And I think that, although white phosphorus is a brutal weapon, we need to remember that we were talking about some pretty brutal insurgents. These were the people who were hacking off hostages' heads with knives."

The Pentagon has admitted US forces used white phosphorus as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Fallujah.

A Pentagon spokesman's comments last night appeared to contradict the US ambassador to London who said that American forces did not use white phosphorus as a weapon.

Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said that white phosphorus - which is normally used to lay smokescreens - was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said it probably would fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people.

A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Fallujah.

The report has been strenuously denied by the US, however Col Venable disclosed that it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.

"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he said on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme.

"We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

Asked directly if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Fallujah, he replied: "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".

He added: "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

However in a letter yesterday to The Independent, the US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, denied that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon.

"US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful conventional weapons against legitimate targets," he said.

"US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."

Col Venable said that a similar denial on the US State Department's website had been entered more than a year ago and was based on "poor information ".

Prof Rodgers said white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect".

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said later: " A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds.

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency.

"The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide."

The Shadow Foreign Secretary Liam Fox said on today's BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "Clearly there needs to be more openness coming from the Pentagon but the claims at the moment are just claims.

"And I think that, although white phosphorus is a brutal weapon, we need to remember that we were talking about some pretty brutal insurgents. These were the people who were hacking off hostages' heads with knives."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece

 

[moghrabi]

U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah- Documentary

Italian state TV, Rai, broadcast a documentary which showed evidence that U.S. forces used phosphorus bombs against Iraqi civilians during the bloody offensive on the city of Fallujah in November 2004, BBC reported.

The film was broadcast between 0730 and 0800 in the morning on Rai's rolling news channel with a warning that the some of the images would be disturbing.

cont... http://tinyurl.com/923ov

Note: Distirbing pictures on website

 

[moghrabi]

U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah- Documentary

Italian state TV, Rai, broadcast a documentary which showed evidence that U.S. forces used phosphorus bombs against Iraqi civilians during the bloody offensive on the city of Fallujah in November 2004, BBC reported.

The film was broadcast between 0730 and 0800 in the morning on Rai's rolling news channel with a warning that the some of the images would be disturbing.

cont... http://tinyurl.com/923ov

Note: Disturbing pictures on website

 

[moghrabi]

Shake 'n Bake: US Used Illegal Chemical Weapons in Fallujah (Confirmed)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US troops used chemic

Where are the cries from ITN and Jay that justice be done in regard to these blatant war crimes?

 

[moghrabi]

RE: US troops used chemic

They are running away from seeing the ugly pictures of innocent civilians including children being burnt by phosphorus. If anything happens to one or more of their marines after this, they only have their leaders to blame. No one else to blame.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

Where are the cries from ITN and Jay that justice be done in regard to these blatant war crimes?

EXACTLY!! where are the cries of disgust, shame and grief at what their own fecking gov't is doing?? Seems they only whine, whimper when they feel they are being (appropriately) chastised as a nation. and then divert attention by making personal attacks on posters.

These are the photos the americans are protected from. No wonder they live in a fantasy world.

damn it......if any other nation was actively doing what the US is doing.........can one imagine the outrage , condemnation and self righteous bull crap???? That old double standard again.......as if it is even valid anymore.

The US must be held to account this time.......and on the international level. This is more than just "impeaching" the prez now.. it is a lot more serious........and the sad thing is that we don't know the half of it.........as the US refuses to be HONEST.... and then there are those fecking "secret prisons" to add the icing on this lethal cake. :evil:

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

So you'll work to see the Americans responsible for the use of banned weapons brought to trial then, ITN?

Nah.

 

[peapod]

Well congraduations I think not, at least your being honest.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

Where are the cries from ITN and Jay that justice be done in regard to these blatant war crimes?

EXACTLY!! where are the cries of disgust, shame and grief at what their own fecking gov't is doing?? Seems they only whine, whimper when they feel they are being (appropriately) chastised as a nation. and then divert attention by making personal attacks on posters.

These are the photos the americans are protected from. No wonder they live in a fantasy world.

damn it......if any other nation was actively doing what the US is doing.........can one imagine the outrage , condemnation and self righteous bull crap???? That old double standard again.......as if it is even valid anymore.

The US must be held to account this time.......and on the international level. This is more than just "impeaching" the prez now.. it is a lot more serious........and the sad thing is that we don't know the half of it.........as the US refuses to be HONEST.... and then there are those fecking "secret prisons" to add the icing on this lethal cake. :evil:

We do it everyday OB, everyday. Where the voices are going to heard, like on American forums? Somewhere where we don't have to listen to the neo-left?

And btw, Jay is Canadian, try and get something right.

 

[peapod]

Yes there are plenty of american voices I think not, but you are not one them. Again I congradulate you on your honesty.

 

[I think not]

Yes there are plenty of american voices I think not, but you are not one them. Again I congradulate you on your honesty.

Right, I have to be an extremist to fit your definition, no thanks, you can have it all for yourself.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Somewhere where we don't have to listen to the neo-left?

so some voices must be SUPPRESSED according to you.??? What is a "neo -left"?? Gosh , you guys sure love your damned labels don't you?? If you can't pigeon hole people into a box / cube then you are lost for adjectives and discussion.

 

[I think not]

Somewhere where we don't have to listen to the neo-left?

so some voices must be SUPPRESSED according to you.??? What is a "neo -left"?? Gosh , you guys sure love your damned labels don't you?? If you can't pigeon hole people into a box / cube then you are lost for adjectives and discussion.

That's my personal reference to extremist views on the left side, like the opposite of the neo-con. You should know :wink:

 

[peapod]

Oh boy dat is rich, yet you do not view dusting civilians with chemical weapons extreme, wow! your gots your extremes fecked up there think.

Oh wait :idea: yes it is extreme, but only when other government do it...okay I get it now.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Well congraduations I think not, at least your being honest.

ditto....... :wink:

 

[I think not]

Oh boy dat is rich, yet you do not view dusting civilians with chemical weapons extreme, wow! your gots your extremes fecked up there think.

Oh wait :idea: yes it is extreme, but only when other government do it...okay I get it now.

I think I'll use that ignore feature on you Peapod, somehow you have completely lost your sense of direction, or maybe you never even had one :roll:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

That's my personal reference to extremist views on the left side

ok.......when it becomes "OFFICIAL" ......let us know :wink:

now.......back to the extremist and deadly actions of YOUR fecking gov't. :evil:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Oh boy dat is rich, yet you do not view dusting civilians with chemical weapons extreme, wow! your gots your extremes fecked up there think.

Oh wait :idea: yes it is extreme, but only when other government do it...okay I get it now.

I think I'll use that ignore feature on you Peapod, somehow you have completely lost your sense of direction, or maybe you never even had one :roll:

you are out of line..........as that is an attack on a poster who is NOT the topic here. How many times does one have to remind ya???

common. now . debate/fight/argue the ISSUES not the poster.
.............as that is nothing but a cheap shot. and breaking the ROC.