did the US use chemical weapons in Fallujah?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,496
Location
the West Coast
[q]US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah
By Peter Popham
Published: 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.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

[/q]
 
"They were warned to get out. They should have known better.

Also the UN resolutions authorised this" - STING2
 
I say Canada should invade the US. Hell, they've got lots of WMD and a leader acting rather authoritarian these days...
 
because it will get ignored there and turn into a shouting match between 3 different posters and numerous allusions to Proposition 1441 as justification for the use of White Phosphorous as more than an illuminatory agent.
 
While these incidents are no more or less tragic than any other civilian casualty in the war, to suggest that the white phosphorus was used as a weapon is misleading.
 
Dreadsox said:
it should be in war.....


well, since our Mission was Accomplished and there is no more war, i don't see the necessity of the forum. but my problems with that forum have been registered and disagreed with.
 
nbcrusader said:
While these incidents are no more or less tragic than any other civilian casualty in the war, to suggest that the white phosphorus was used as a weapon is misleading.

Why?
 
nbcrusader said:
While these incidents are no more or less tragic than any other civilian casualty in the war, to suggest that the white phosphorus was used as a weapon is misleading.



well, it seems to have functioned as a weapon and killed civilians -- all that collatoral damage that gets brushed off by us with a sort of "oh well, that's what happens in war" when, really, it's should be an "oh well, that's what happens to innocent civilians when we start a war" -- in a rather gruesome fashion that is indeed reminiscent of the ugliest days of the Hussein Regime and the Iran/Iraq war.

doing more reading on this, it doesn't seem to me as if the question is whether we've technically violated any treaty obligations. it seems as if White Phosporus is technically legal.

for me, the issue here is the use of this weapon, and it's inevitable side effects, further erodes whatever moral standing we have left. we invaded because of Saddam's use of chemical weapons and, as an afterthought when it turns out that there weren't any WMDs to begin with, his appaling treatment of his peopel and especially torture. well, now we torture and use White Phosporus.

however, it remains to be see if WP was used solely a battlefield illumination mechanism, for which it seems to have a legitimate purpose, or whether it was intentionally used as anti-personnel munition. or, does such a distinction matter when its use -- whether legitimate or not -- becomes a de facto chemical attack on innocent civilians?
 
Irvine511 said:

well, since our Mission was Accomplished and there is no more war, i don't see the necessity of the forum. but my problems with that forum have been registered and disagreed with.

I agree. The war forum is useless.
 
Irvine511 said:
however, it remains to be see if WP was used solely a battlefield illumination mechanism, for which it seems to have a legitimate purpose, or whether it was intentionally used as anti-personnel munition. or, does such a distinction matter when its use -- whether legitimate or not -- becomes a de facto chemical attack on innocent civilians?

This would be the central point of the issue. Are WP rounds fired at buildings to kill inhabitants, or are they lobbed in the air for illumination? Typically, WP includes a parachute mechanism to slow the decent.

Historically, WP has been used as a munition to mark targets for subsequent rounds. This practice goes back to WWII. It was a low tech version of marking targets.
 
:sigh:

figures.

that's okay, i'm sure most of the rest of the MSM, especially Fox News, will bury this story too.

let's continue talking about Andrea Yates and Natalie Holloway!!!

:hyper:
 
joyfulgirl said:
I agree. The war forum is useless.

it may not be the intention of the mods

but when a complainer gets tired of reading the truth about the bush admin

they get stuff moved here.



unfortunately

in *many parts of the world* the lead story on front pages of their national newspaper
has to with what could be shuffled off to this forum
 
nbcrusader said:


Just add a donations link.... :wink:


:wink:

yes, no kidding.....

My one campaign red cross thread was closed. No one in here probably notices that these threads are illegal.
 
Irvine511 said:
:sigh:

figures.

that's okay, i'm sure most of the rest of the MSM, especially Fox News, will bury this story too.

let's continue talking about Andrea Yates and Natalie Holloway!!!

:hyper:

Irvine,
Since I was the mod who moved this thread I feel compelled to ask: what on earth makes you believe that I, of all people, am in favour of burying the horrible news about what's happening to the Iraqi people under occupation? I have consistently opposed this war since it was first advocated and I continue to strongly oppose the occupation. I've participated in numerous anti-war protests as well as participating in and helping to organise other anti-war activities. I'm currently involved in campaigning against the occupation, which believe it or not, involves making people aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people under occupation. Why, then, do you think I would be in favour of 'burying' this news here in FYM?

I appreciate that you dislike the idea of the War sub-forum, but this forum exists and is to be used for threads discussing the war. The fact that you dislike a policy of this site does not mean you're free to ignore it and the mods shouldn't challenge you. There are plenty of people who think we shouldn't have a rule forbidding personal attacks but that doesn't mean they're free to ignore the rule and start calling each other names.

And I really would appreciate you explaining why it is you believe I'm in favour of burying bad news from Iraq, especially in the light of my own consistent opposition to the war and occupation.

Thanks,
*Fizz.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:



Since I was the mod who moved this thread I feel compelled to ask: what on earth makes you believe that I, of all people, am in favour of burying the horrible news about what's happening to the Iraqi people under occupation?


deep said:


it may not be the intention of the mods <-----------------




unfortunately in *many parts of the world* the lead story on front pages of their national newspaper
has to with what could be shuffled off to this forum
 
deep said:


it may not be the intention of the mods

but when a complainer gets tired of reading the truth about the bush admin

they get stuff moved here.


No, I think you have it wrong. The complainer has had threads moved in here as well.

The complainer is looking for consistency.

The complainer wants this room closed.



Grow a pair and call me by name rather than the complainer.
 
Last edited:
I do not think they used it as a weapon.

I am concerned that it was used at all. Even if the intent was for something else, the undesired effect is too costly in the court of public opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom