US Used Chemical Weapons In Iraq - NOT for the faint hearted

[pdanev]

U.S. Used Chemical Weapons In Iraq
Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.
La Repubblica

Shocking revelation RAI News 24.

White phosphorous used on the civilian populace: This is how the US "took" Fallujah. New napalm formula also used.

November 7, 2005 - "La Repubblica" -- -- ROME. In soldier slang they call it Willy Pete. The technical name is white phosphorus. In theory its purpose is to illumine enemy positions in the dark. In practice, it was used as a chemical weapon in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. And it was used not only against enemy combatants and guerrillas, but again innocent civilians. The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. An investigation by RAI News 24, the all-news Italian satellite television channel, has pulled the veil from one of the most carefully concealed mysteries from the front in the entire US military campaign in Iraq.

A US veteran of the Iraq war told RAI New correspondent Sigfrido Ranucci this: I received the order use caution because we had used white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military slag it is called 'Willy Pete'. Phosphorus burns the human body on contact--it even melts it right down to the bone.

RAI News 24's investigative story, Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre, will be broadcast tomorrow on RAI-3 and will contain not only eye-witness accounts by US military personnel but those from Fallujah residents. A rain of fire descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and Fallujah resident.

I gathered accounts of the use of phosphorus and napalm from a few Fallujah refugees whom I met before being kidnapped, says Manifesto reporter Giuliana Sgrena, who was kidnapped in Fallujah last February, in a recorded interview. I wanted to get the story out, but my kidnappers would not permit it.

RAI News 24 will broadcast video and photographs taken in the Iraqi city during and after the November 2004 bombardment which prove that the US military, contrary to statements in a December 9 communiqué from the US Department of State, did not use phosphorus to illuminate enemy positions (which would have been legitimate) but instend dropped white phosphorus indiscriminately and in massive quantities on the city's neighborhoods.

In the investigative story, produced by Maurizio Torrealta, dramatic footage is shown revealing the effects of the bombardment on civilians, women and children, some of whom were surprised in their sleep.

The investigation will also broadcast documentary proof of the use in Iraq of a new napalm formula called MK77. The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997.

Fallujah. La strage nascosta [Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre] will be shown on RAI News tomorrow November 8th at 07:35 (via HOT BIRDTM statellite, Sky Channel 506 and RAI-3), and rebroadcast by HOT BIRDTM satellite and Sky Channel 506 at 17:00 [5 pm] and over the next two days.

Before you open the links below, bare in mind that they contain some shocking and disturbing images!!!!!

I deliberatly removed the www infront of the links, so if you really want to see the images copy paste the links into a new window!

uruknet.info/uruknet-images/ach1.jpeg
uruknet.info/uruknet-images/ach2.jpeg
uruknet.info/uruknet-images/ach3.jpeg
uruknet.info/uruknet-images/ach7.jpeg

Full story here: (ALSO CONTAINS THE IMAGES!!!!)
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m17559&da...2005_20:32_ECT

[flyingfridge]

After looking at that it's hard to make a real thought as to what I think. The whole usage of 'unconventional' weapons is the focus of the war, I have my doubts America would be that stupid. Especially considering they're violating chemical weapons treaties. In the modern days of mass media it's not like something like that will stay hidden long. My other reservation is that it pops up on what seems to be an Iraqi friendly website, that has a user comments posting section. Don't forget propaganda is the most powerful weapon of war...

I'm not jumping on America's or Iraq's bandwagon as a lot of people these days seem very prone to doing. I'm just skeptical, that's all.

[Manic Moran]

Umm.. I hate to bring a few facts to the table...

Napalm, white phosphorous, and so on, are not chemical weapons. They are incendiary weapons, and have been legal for use in war ever since they were invented. Sometimes they are considered less effective and not often used, for example, flamethrowers, and they have been removed from service as tank ammunition because of the storage requirments, but the systems themselves are not barred from use in warfare under any applicable international agreement (Particularly the Hague conventions on conduct of warfare)

Whilst a bit of a nitpick, Mk77 is the name of the container, that could be filled with anything from WP through washing-up-liquid. More likely than not, an incendiary, however.

Standard military use for WP these days is marking of targets (Aviation rockets, for example) or creating smoke screens (Which requires a fair barrage of artillery or mortar rounds) though they do retain their secondary anti-personnel use if rounds like the far more effective ICM are not available for some reason.

It's not an illumination round, however. Perhaps there's an error in translation from 'marking'.

[Z Draci]

Can you say lies, deception, and propaganda?

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by Manic Moran

Napalm, white phosphorous, and so on, are not chemical weapons. They are incendiary weapons, and have been legal for use in war ever since they were invented.

nope they are not legal, there'a Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
and only the axis of evil (usa, iran, syria and northkorea) haven't signed it (china,russia etc. have signed it)

[Olds442]

Originally Posted by fluke667

axis of evil (usa, iran, syria and northkorea) haven't signed it

USA = Axis of Evil? Let's not lose our heads, OK?

[fluke667]

you invented this kinda thing of throwing random countries together and calling them axis of something (i was j/k)

...and usa =! axis of evil ...usa + iran + northkorea + syria = axis of evil (it's hard to have a one state axis)

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by flyingfridge

In the modern days of mass media it's not like something like that will stay hidden long.

La Republica and The Independant are mass media (saw it on some german papers too) ...so you're right

[Olds442]

Originally Posted by fluke667

you invented this kinda thing of throwing random countries together and calling them axis of something (i was j/k)

Not me. Not even 50% of the residents of the U.S. Just some half retarded politician in Washington (you know who).

It's like me saying that you are a nazi and are responsible for the actions of Josef Mengele.

...and usa =! axis of evil ...usa + iran + northkorea + syria = axis of evil (it's hard to have a one state axis)

No kidding.

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by Olds442

Not me. Not even 50% of the residents of the U.S. Just some half retarded politician in Washington (you know who).

yes i know and i didn't want to offend you (sorry if i did) and i'm surely not making YOU responsible
it's just that i've been very surprised that this "axis" hasn't signed that protocol (even china and russia did)

[zenkidori]

Originally Posted by fluke667

you invented this kinda thing of throwing random countries together and calling them axis of something (i was j/k)

...and usa =! axis of evil ...usa + iran + northkorea + syria = axis of evil (it's hard to have a one state axis)

you're just jealous because you guys aren't part of it this time.

[Manic Moran]

nope they are not legal, there'a Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
and only the axis of evil (usa, iran, syria and northkorea) haven't signed it (china,russia etc. have signed it)

If you're going to be sarcastic, you might as well be accurate about it. Gives things a lot more bite.

Now, go read the item that you've just linked to. Read it again. Better yet, keep a window open, and continue reading this.

Firstly. It says nothing about any general prohibitions on the military use of incendiary munitions of any type. (Any such prohibition would actually come under the Hague prohibitions on weapons designed to cause undue pain and suffering, but they are not considered such.)

Secondly, in areas where civilians are possible, the only incendiary weapons which are specifically prohobited are aircraft-delivered. Basically, they wanted to make sure there wasn't a repeat of Dresden/Tokyo et al, even though it can be argued that current generations of munitions can render that fear moot.

Thirdly, in areas where a military target is located and civilians are in the region, it is -still-, per the agreement, permissable to use all other incendiary weapons (Flamethrowers, grenades, mortars, artillery, cannon, and anything else I might have missed) provided that the user is mindful of trying to minimise civilian casualties. (Exact words "Feasible Precautions".) It does not say that the users must guarantee that no civilians will be hurt, if they happen to still be around wherever the fighting is going on. I am not advocating that such things should be slung around blindly, but pointing out that there are circumstances where such weapons would be appropriate and legal both, even if someone unfortunately should get in the way, and particularly if, at the time, the soldiers in question had no reasonable way of knowing that non-combatants were in the area.

This is my job, I think I know where I'm coming from.

NTM

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by Manic Moran

Now, go read the item that you've just linked to. Read it again. Better yet, keep a window open, and continue reading this.

ok let's do this
so what about article 1 paragraph 2

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

fallujah is a city, right ?
and even if you declare it as a military target as 3. describes

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

there is still article 2 paragraph 2

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

oh you said

...the only incendiary weapons which are specifically prohobited are aircraft-delivered

and

It does not say that the users must guarantee that no civilians will be hurt...

so what about a.2 p.1 ?

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

[tloekke]

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

I'm thinking that civilians weren't the object of the attack, but rather what civilians often are in a warzone; innocent bystanders.

[zenkidori]

it's called collateral damage.

[Manic Moran]

I'm presuming that from your address that you're German, and am assuming a language barrier here. (And yes, your English is far better than my German)

Fallujah is a city, right ?
and even if you declare it as a military target as 3. describes

Yes it is. I do not declare it a military target. A military target can exist within a city, such as a strongpoint with riflemen/grenadiers in a building in a city. I think it can safely be said that its neutralisation would indeed be militarily advantageous. Thus the requirements of para 2 are met.


2p1 refers to 'making the civilians objects of the attack' . This means targetting them, or otherwise attempting to deliberately make the civilians the people on the receiving end. As I said, if they just happened to be in the way, and the soldiers take any reasonable actions to try to avoid hitting them, it's just an unfortunate reality of combat.

As referenced above, the euphemism is 'collateral damage'

[Edited to add: I am not simply dismissive of civilian casualties. I've seen them personally, not just getting angry through a TV screen. If you wish to state your objections to the choices of policy which resulted in those casualties (such as the invasion), I might argue your points, but I won't flat out tell you you are wrong. When you attempt to claim that line soldiers are in a certain happenstance flagrantly disregarding rules of combat with indiscriminate use of banned weapons, which is a claim wrong both factually (the weapons aren't banned) and subjectively (If it resulted in X many civilian deaths, arguing that resonable precautions weren't taken despite your lack of knowledge of the situation), I will not merely argue the point, I will tell you you are mistaken, inaccurate and wrong.

NTM

[SiR_dude]

I'm with the army guy on this one

[///M]

I find it funny that people are surprised that the powers at be aren't following the usual rules in this war.

I mean, look at how they started it. I highly doubt they (the Coalition of the Willing, I love that name) care what other people think. This whole war has been one big human-rights issue from day one.

Oh well.

[Manic Moran]

I am willing to admit that the whole concept of 'rules in war' is a complete and utter fallacy. People will do, and frankly, I think are exected to do, whatever it is that's needed to do to win. "Following the rules" is a luxury which can only be afforded by those who are in a stronger position. There are no prizes for the 'fair play' award, after all.

Now, that said, the US is in the position that it can kick the ass of pretty much anyone on the planet who decides to play by 'the rules'. I wouldn't blame anyone for following 'assymetrical warfare' or otherwise using 'cheating and underhanded methods.' Now, this war is different to most: The only way to win is politically/psychologically. If the US goes over those lines, it loses. End of story. I think the US is aware of this fact, as are the majority of the troops. If the US wishes to 'win' this, they have to have the moral high ground.

NTM

[bone]

^and then belgium can sue them

oh man, that was a laugh when they announced america would be sued in belgium for war crimes in iraq