US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

billy the squid

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

The results of this chemical being used on civilians in Iraq is quite gruesome. I figured it best not to link to the documentary itself.

So after accusing Saddam hussein of having chemical weapons, the only way they can think of finding out is to use .... chemical weapons.

Such weapons being used on civilians is banned by the UN. I would love to hear what the apologists have to say about this revalation.

Im sure the White House Iraq Group must have forgotten to include this when they were selling the war to the American people.

Laguna

It's disgusting. What sickens me the most about the American government is they claim to be Christian. Does this seem like a Christian approach to humanity. Yet more hypocrisy.

bonkey

Interesting link.

I seem to recall Hobbes or someone posting about the hosing down that cleanup crews were doing at the time of the Fallujah "liberation", and there was speculation that some seekrit weapon had been used, which was followed by me (or someone else) suggesting that we didn't need some secret weapon when the actions would be consistent with the use of phosphorous or the like.

jc

Hobbes

Wasn't me, although I do recall there was a news story at the time they basically shut down the city from any reporter being allowed in (with the threat of being shot).

Zulu

God bless America.

HelterSkelter

And the US & Brits wonder why they have suicide bombers attacking them. If someone attacked my city like that I would do absolutly ANYTHING within my power to get them back.

county

i`ve never heard of an iraqie suicide bomber,please enlighten me

HelterSkelter

county wrote:

i`ve never heard of an iraqie suicide bomber,please enlighten me

So what nationality do you think the suicide bombers are who are attacking the US & Brit troops everyday? From the article:

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

I presume your smart arse comment is refering to the London tube bombings and the like. It's because the US & Brit army are killing innocent Iraqi Muslims that other Muslims (not necessarly Iraqi) are attacking them with suicide bombs.

Rev Hellfire

I suspect he's refering to the fact that there are numerous foreign fighters present in iraq, and that it is they who may be responsible for the suicide attacks.
I think he's also asking for evidence to backup the claim that it is iraqis who are carrying out these particular type of attacks.

A Dub in Glasgo

War crimes and terrorism spring to mind but the US are the defenders of Democracy therefore anyone who accuses them of these things is spouting tin foil hat stuff... apparantly

Nuttzz

WP isnt a new weapon, nor is its use banned by any treaty.

WP is a horrific weapon, a link to the documentry might be useful

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

HelterSkelter

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suspect he's refering to the fact that there are numerous foreign fighters present in iraq, and that it is they who may be responsible for the suicide attacks.
I think he's also asking for evidence to backup the claim that it is iraqis who are carrying out these particular type of attacks.

Their nationality of the suicide bombers is a red herring. The fact is the butchering of innocent Iraqis like this by US and Brits is contributing to the suicide attacks both in Iraq and in their home countries.

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

HelterSkelter

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

I presume the US army kept everyone out of Fallujah until they had cleaned up.

I notice this story is being ignored by most of the media including RTÉ, Sky News, Fox News, CBS News, etc. BBC are the only site I found reporting it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm)

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

I presume the US army kept everyone out of Fallujah until they had cleaned up.

I notice this story is being ignored by most of the media including RTÉ, Sky News, Fox News, CBS News, etc. BBC are the only site I found reporting it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm)

I work for a company that has developed a nifty search engine that monitors UK and Irish media,Gov depts etc and I ran a search to see how many websites of news agencies are running with the story.
So far only the BBC,UK Indepedent, Indymedia,Belfast Telegraph and Eircom.net(from Irish Times) are putting up stories.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=668578
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/6679454?view=Eircomnet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72871

Although the BBC did suspiciously change the title(good work on that here http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog)

Considering there are 100's of news sites montitored by our search engine it is worrying. I am particularily disappointed about RTEs lack of coverage.

billy the squid

Nuttzz wrote:

WP isnt a new weapon, nor is its use banned by any treaty.

WP is a horrific weapon, a link to the documentry might be useful

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

I didnt link to the documentary because it is quite gruesome. If a moderator wants to review it, I can sent them the link and let them decide whether or not posting it up here is appropriate.

Moriarty

WP is as close to a chemical weapon as conventional explosives are to a nuclear weapon.

Weh weh weh, lets throw around alligations we know aren't true but will grab headlines anyway.. once anyone actually draws attention to the fact the headlines are blatant lies, we can move on to the next story of half truths, and so on and so forth. Quality journalism.

A Dub in Glasgo

When I done the Leaving Cert, Phosphorous was a chemical. A weaponised form of phosphorous is a chemical weapon. WP will cause quite painful chemical burn injuries which is deeply embedded in the flesh ensuring a high mortality rate.

Moriarty

What do you think explosives are? Non-Chemicals?

Are explosives grown on explosive trees and a natural product of mother earth?

A Dub in Glasgo

Of course not

What do you understand the term 'chemical weapon' to mean and explain how the use of a weaponised form of White Phosphorous cannot be classed as a chemical weapon

Moriarty

The wikipedia defintion seems fairly consistent with CWC defintions, so I'll quote it here.

Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Note: toxic.

The CWC explicitly defines the substances under its purview as "toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or precursors of other listed substances."

WP is an incendiary weapon, as the BBC article correctly defines it.

breandan

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

There is actaully very few 'foreign' ie 'western' journalists operating outside the green zone in Baghdad. Most reports from AP, AFP and the like are from Iraqi reporters on the ground and the Shi'ite and Kurde dominated military in Iraq, who are hardly likely to own up to such activities as it was the Shi'ite/Kurd alliance that have allowed the Americans to go into cities and towns in Al Anbar Province mob handed.
Indeed the Iraqi military as in the Shi'ite/Kurd alliance have actually contributed troops to some of these operations.
Not to mention the lunatic Jihadis who are as likely to lob off journos heads as give them news scoops.
So basically theres a whole lot of people with guns who dont want the world knowing whats going on in deepest darkest Al Anbar and there are very few 'western journalists' in Iraq to comment on these activities even if they did have the access to these areas!

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

The wikipedia defintion seems fairly consistent with CWC defintions, so I'll quote it here.


Note: toxic.

The CWC explicitly defines the substances under its purview as "toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or precursors of other listed substances."

WP is an incendiary weapon, as the BBC article correctly defines it.

ah right so now it's up to the wikipedia to decide when weapons that are used constitute chemical warfare.

This kind of arguement is completely semantical.

The effect that the chemical has on human beings is very obvious. This is exactly how the US used Agent Orange in Vietnam, and the consequences of that can be seen even today. I suppose luckily for the US White phosphorous doesn't seem to have similar teratogenic effects, rather it just burns people alive the moment it hits their skin. Which doesn't leave the kind of long term evidence as Agent Orange.

I bet if saddam had used it people like you would be lining the streets with megaphones claiming it as proof of Iraqi WMD.

It is a chemical, that was used as a weapon, denial by the US administration not withstanding. Off course they are going to deny it however by this stage it's pretty clear that this US administration has 0 credibility.

But the fact that the US used chemical weapons comes as no surprise. It is consistant with their military doctrine past and present.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

ah right so now it's up to the wikipedia to decide when weapons that are used constitute chemical warfare.

This kind of arguement is completely semantical.

Did you read the quote you were responding to?

It pointed out that wiki was close to the CWC, and mentioned both what wike and the Chemical Weapons Convention declared it to be.

So the "completely semantical" argument is providing two definitions which agree with each other, and where one of which is about as definitive a declaration as you could wish for?

The effect that the chemical has on human beings is very obvious.

No, its not. THe effect that the combustion of the chemical has on human beings is very obvious. Thus, it is incendiary.

This is exactly how the US used Agent Orange in Vietnam,

Huh? The US ignited Agent Orange and burned people to death with it? Thats a first to me. You have sources, I assume?

rather it just burns people alive the moment it hits their skin.
Which doesn't leave the kind of long term evidence as Agent Orange.

You don't think burn marks of a very specific nature are long-term evidence?

It is a chemical, that was used as a weapon,

Ah right. I see,. The CWC and Wiki definitions, although virtually identical are unacceptable because one of them is from wiki. The "Here's my own off-the-cuff definition" from your good self, however, should be more than enough of a definition for anyone?

But the fact that the US used chemical weapons comes as no surprise.

Allegedly used chemical weapons, or did the burden of proof disappear when you threw out the CWC definition as well?

jc

Hagar

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

The victor writes the history books.

dahamsta

Deleted User wrote:

I work for a company that has developed a nifty search engine that monitors UK and Irish media,Gov depts etc and I ran a search to see how many websites of news agencies are running with the story.
So far only the BBC,UK Indepedent, Indymedia,Belfast Telegraph and Eircom.net(from Irish Times) are putting up stories.

It's in a few more than that, however yes, it is quite limited for such an important story.

biko

It seems, after a quick scan, only Boston Globe in the US ran the story (don't know about paper edition).
Boston is a Kerry stronghold so that's evident. Wonder if it made it to headlines in " Jesusland"

dahamsta

biko wrote:

It seems, after a quick scan, only Boston Globe in the US ran the story (don't know about paper edition).
Boston is a Kerry stronghold so that's evident. Wonder if it made it to headlines in " Jesusland"

I'm pretty sure the Christian Science Monitor is US-based, and pretty popular; although of course it's published by a church, and past experience suggests it's somewhat left-wing in it's editorial policy (and thus generally read by left-wingers). As an aside, I'm often very surprised by it's quality, given it's background.

Plus there are a few other smaller US-based publications (the ones with a state acronym after their name rather than a country). The story was picked up by Reuters and UPI too, so we may see it picked up from there in the next day or two. Or not.

Spacedog

You guys can bicker about the definition of a chemical weapon all you like. If anyone here can say that WP use isn't a big deal, is being blown out of proportion, or isn't that toxic. You'll have no bother taking a face full of the stuff and letting us know how safe it is.

I'm tempted to post the image from this article straight to the board...

(Warning - horrific imagery)
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

Moriarty

It can be and is used as a weapon among other things. No one's disputing that. No one is disputing it's damaging/lethal effects either. Its use is not outlawed, and it is not a chemical weapon. Only people with an axe to grind would claim it is.

HelterSkelter

Spacedog wrote:

You guys can bicker about the definition of a chemical weapon all you like. If anyone here can say that WP use isn't a big deal, is being blown out of proportion, or isn't that toxic. You'll have no bother taking a face full of the stuff and letting us know how safe it is.

I'm tempted to post the image from this article straight to the board...

(Warning - horrific imagery)
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It doesn't matter a fúck if it's chemical or not, outlawed or not, the fact is it causes horrific injuries resulting in death and accoding to this documentary the US used it on citizens in Fallujah.