US troops used chemical weapons

[moghrabi]

Fallujah: We Got Your WMD Right Here

by Jeff Stevens

Hear those footsteps? That persistent trotting sound?

That's the sound of an old familiar political warhorse, frequently trotted out in the public discourse by faithful defenders of the Iraq War--namely, the specter of Saddam Hussein's crimes against the Iraqi people. Even today, in the light of the appalling disaster the US "liberation" of Iraq has become, war defenders continue to invoke Saddam's tyranny as a rhetorical bulwark against war critics--including and especially his use of chemical weapons against Iraqis back in the day. As one recent Seattle Times letter-to-the-editor indignantly declared (italics his): "The war in Iraq is not an unjustified war. Saddam Hussein did have WMD. He used them on his own people!"

Unfortunately, it appears that, two and a half years after Saddam's removal from power, the US occupation has subjected Iraqis to many of the same sufferings as the erstwhile US-supported Saddam regime. This month, just in time for the unhappy anniversary of the massive assault on Fallujah by coalition forces in November 2004, another of these sad similarities has revealed itself.

Last week on Nov. 16, after a full year of rumors among Iraqis and in the independent media (and the requisite denials by US and UK authorities), the US military, by way of spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable, admitted to the BBC that the chemical agent white phosphorus, or WP, was used as a weapon against "enemy combatants" in Fallujah during last November's assault. And what sort of weapon is WP? Technically speaking, it's not a weapon but merely an incendiary agent usually used to create massive smoke shields to obscure troop movements. But it can also be deployed as an offensive weapon against an enemy. If that "enemy" happens to be entrenched among a concentrated civilian population--such as Fallujah, home to 350,000 prior to the coalition assault--then you've got a slight moral (and possibly legal) problem: The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by international treaty--specifically, Article Two, Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. WP, which spontaneously ignites when exposed to oxygen, has been noted for its ability to burn human flesh "down to the bone."

Venable's concession was preceded by renewed controversy the previous week, sparked mainly by an Italian state TV documentary which accused the US military of using WP against civilians in Fallujah during the November 2004 assault. While the documentary, "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" (broadcast in Italy on RAI TV on Nov. 8), gave spurious evidence for the accusation, savvy bloggers corroborated the story by dredging up an article in the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery Magazine--a US Army publication--entitled "The Fight for Fallujah." Here's a revealing sample passage, straight from the military's mouth:

"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 [high explosives]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

This noteworthy "shake and bake" anecdote is turning out to be one of possibly many instances of WP use as an offensive weapon by the US military in Iraq, as reported by The Independent, The Guardian, and other media outlets. Photographic evidence, including the RAI report, already exists of "collateral damage" (i.e. civilians burned "down to the bone") in Fallujah. Venable has also conceded: "I would not rule out the possibility that [WP] has been used in other locations [in Iraq]." The Iraqi government is reportedly planning an inquiry into the matter, but the scale and time frame for the inquiry hasn't been set. In the meantime, on Nov. 20 George W. Bush once again boldly declared his intention to "stay the course" in Iraq.

Let us never forget the original justification for the Iraq invasion offered for sale by the Bush Bunch: Saddam Hussein possessed "the world's worst weapons" and might one day use them. And, as noted by a certain apoplectic Seattle Times reader, "He used them on his own people!" In the light of this month's revelations about what "our troops" did to the city of Fallujah last November, perhaps now is the time for such indignant rhetoricians to, shall we say, put a sock in it? Saddam's history, folks. The US military, and the latest US proxy Iraqi government, have taken his place. Isn't it ironic that, in order to "liberate" Iraqis from a despot who used WMD on his own people, the United States is now following in Saddam's footsteps?

And speaking of footsteps: How long will it take before that horse comes to realize that it's trotting around in circles in its own shit?

http://tinyurl.com/dktsb

 

[Ocean Breeze]

from above article:

Many of the skin on the bodies had apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable.

Ranucci said he had seen "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

Happy thanksgiving AMERICA.

it is very hard not to have a serious VISCERAL response to the information that is coming out.....about American atrocities "today" and in their short history.

notice how those that support the bushcon regime maintain their complicit silence ......as these atrocities come to light. If only ONE had the fecking GUTS to admit that there are some serious problems/mistakes and that America has blown it on MANY occasions including now.....it might warrant a particle of respect .

seems they operate on the POWER over PEOPLE as the lust for power has them blinded.

 

[peapod]

Here is something right out of the horse's mouth....field artillery magazine on their fight for fallujah.

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] 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."

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf


http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US troops used chemic

The US has been caught using a chemical weapon on women and children. They don't even deny doing it anymore. I don't see how he American people...any Americans...can tolerate their government doing this.

Perhaps one of the members here who so adamantly supports or excuses the actions of the Bush regime can explain it to us.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

The US has been caught using a chemical weapon on women and children. They don't even deny doing it anymore. I don't see how he American people...any Americans...can tolerate their government doing this.

Perhaps one of the members here who so adamantly supports or excuses the actions of the Bush regime can explain it to us.

It boggles the mind that americans are so complacent about it.....(IF that is what they are) :evil:

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE??? Not sexy enough for them??? :evil: Or maybe not HORRIFIC enough for them....... them being a society that has grown up on violence. Motion picture and real.

 

[peapod]

More to the question is how they figured this would not come out, or maybe it didn't matter if it did. Correct me if I am wrong, but does this not produce a mushroom cloud? So how can you say that civilians would not be part of the target?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

The US has been caught using a chemical weapon on women and children. They don't even deny doing it anymore. I don't see how he American people...any Americans...can tolerate their government doing this.

Perhaps one of the members here who so adamantly supports or excuses the actions of the Bush regime can explain it to us.

american attitude towards the crimes /inhumanity of their gov't actions??? (which they passively support by their collective silence)

Depraved indifference. :x

 

[neocon-hunter]

RE: US troops used chemic

Its the typical American Government and some of the publics double standard. It is ok and "justified" if they do it but not if anyone else does.

They should add a new definition of Hypocrit in the dictionary. They need to add Bush administration.

 

[moghrabi]

Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1647998,00.html

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Shake and Bake
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article
Published: November 29, 2005
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.

Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.

White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy's positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body.

The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.

But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback. Italian television reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to have one of those unsettling military nicknames: "shake and bake."

The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can't say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were.

They also say that using white phosphorus against military targets is legal. That's true, but the 1983 convention bans its use against "civilians or civilian objects," which would make white phosphorus attacks in urban settings like Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The United States signed that convention, but the portion dealing with incendiary weapons has been awaiting ratification in the Senate.

These are technicalities, in any case. Iraq, where winning over wary civilians is as critical as defeating armed insurgents, is no place to be using a weapon like this. More broadly, American demands for counterproliferation efforts and international arms control ring a bit hollow when the United States refuses to give up white phosphorus, not to mention cluster bombs and land mines.

The United States should be leading the world, not dragging its feet, when it comes to this sort of issue - because it's right and because all of us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms of conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why torture should be banned in American prisons. And it is why the United States should stop using white phosphorus.

source: N.Y. Times.

 

[no1important]

US general defends phosphorus use

A teaser:

The United States' most senior general has defended the use of weapons containing white phosphorus in Iraq.

General Peter Pace said that such munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military", used to illuminate targets and create smokescreen. [/teaser]

That prick is a war criminal as well and deserves to rot in a cell for the rest of his natural life. "Spin and Spin" and "lie and lie" is all the US Government and military know how to do well.

But isn't "spin" just a fancy term for lying anyhow?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

But isn't "spin" just a fancy term for lying anyhow?

spot on !! and notice how many new "terms" have come into use since the shrubcon took office??? They must have their spin machine in overdrive to change the vocabulary so that they can feed the sheeple the bullcrap they do. Ya know.....give it a new label, term or phrase......and the sheeple will fall for it.

(for eg. fighting terrorism........"over there". which only means granting themselves the right to invade who ever they see fit at the moment. They could care less about the people they kill,torture, maim or chemical weaponize........and yet they keep yelping about other nations maybe 'having' WMD.......

The US not only has them but USES them.

Now,what is wrong in this "fair and balanced" :roll: world we live in...

 

[I think not]

Warning:

The followinf link takes you stright to an article about the US using Chemical Weapons in Iraq. The article contains images of victims and not suitable for all readers.

http://tinyurl.com/8jmum

Inside the articles there are links that takes you to more images.

Those pictures were horrible.

I just have a question, does anyone know why their clothes aren't burnt?

 

[peapod]

I have a question, does it bother you that maybe their bodies were covered. Here is another, how do you feel about your miltrary using the very chemical on the Iraq people that your government said Saddam was using.??

 

[I think not]

I have a question, does it bother you that maybe their bodies were covered. Here is another, how do you feel about your miltrary using the very chemical on the Iraq people that your government said Saddam was using.??

Their bodies weren't covered, they were wearing clothes. Nice try, try again. I've seen the documentary, have you?

 

[moghrabi]

RE: US troops used chemic

Why would cloths be affected by phosphorus. It interacts with biological bodies. That is my humble understanding of it.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

Why would cloths be affected by phosphorus. It interacts with biological bodies. That is my humble understanding of it.

Well at least someone answers the question. Thank you!!!

I don't know, thats the only thing that strikes me as odd, after watching the documentary and reading all the links here. Thanks for giving me your opinion.

 

[peapod]

Stop side stepping, answer the question. How do you feel about your miltrary using chemicals on the Iraq people. Oh I know...it never happened :roll:

 

[moghrabi]

Re: RE: US troops used chemic

Why would cloths be affected by phosphorus. It interacts with biological bodies. That is my humble understanding of it.

Well at least someone answers the question. Thank you!!!

I don't know, thats the only thing that strikes me as odd, after watching the documentary and reading all the links here. Thanks for giving me your opinion.

You are welcome. Even in Japan after the bomb was dropped, you can still see people fully clothed.

 

[I think not]

Stop side stepping, answer the question. How do you feel about your miltrary using chemicals on the Iraq people. Oh I know...it never happened :roll:

When I have all the information I need to make an intelligent conversation (albeit it will most probably fall on deaf ears), I will answer you. So far, it's pretty clear WP has been used, there is no denying that. My questions after reading the links and watching clips from the documentary are, for now:

1) Does WP burn through clothes? I don't know, mog's reply seems logical, I have to research it.
2) Were civilians intentionally targeted?
3) Is WP illegal?

If you don't mind, I like to research the topic to my satisfaction, and don't ever presume what my response will be, mmmmk?