Big Fat lying hypocrites!

Re: more lies from the liberal.......er........military?!


The military admitted no guilt in that (or anywhere else). I saw no lies in there either.

OOOOOOOps it appears that all those right wing people devoid of the ability to think for themselves and come on here chanting the mantra of fox news have to swallow their words (actually the number of times war mongering right wingers have had to swallow their words is so often that ist losing its thrill factor)........

The US Military has now changed their story (shock horror gasp) for the third time on this issue firstly they were telling us they didnt use the Phosphorous then when that lid was blown they said yes actually we were using it but it was for visibility and.....cough.cough.........so that then got eexposed that they were actually using its as a weapon so they now say sure weapon thats right we remember ..........its all coming back to us......thats right we used it as a weapon but only against the insurgents.......not againts civilians...............

yes folks we can all sleep better in the knowledge that eveything is in the hands of the sane and decent folk.......those fotos we seen and the videos they are just another liberal media ploy to undermine this righteous war to

1) Punish Al qaeda by killing Iraqis (even though they kinda turned up after we wrecked everything)
2) remove a dictator that was gonna use chemical weapons on people, unlike our moral heros.
3) And 'they' hate .......er.....freedom.........and our way of life (see above or below for samples of our way of life)
4) and.....er........what about our troops............and ...........er........
5) look out behind you!!!!


_____________________________________________

from the liars of the BBC our allies and friends.

Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 November 2005, 15:02 GMT


Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons
Residents pick through the rubble of a house destroyed in Falluja
The US offensive in Falluja reduced much of the city to rubble
An Iraqi human rights team has gone to the city of Falluja to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by US forces, a minister has told the BBC.

Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says it will be some time before the human rights team reports back.

In other developments in Iraq:

* Sunni parties demand an international inquiry into the alleged abuse of more than 170 detainees by Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

* Three US soldiers are killed in a roadside bomb near Baghdad

* A car bomb kills a US marine in Karmah, 80km (50 miles) west of Baghdad.

Italian TV station Rai alleged last week that the US had used phosphorus against built-up areas, and that civilians were killed.

The report sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.


WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

Weapon on the edge
Q&A: White phosphorus

The US initially said white phosphorus had been used only to illuminate enemy positions, but now admits it was used as a weapon.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract that denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

He said earlier denials had been based on "poor information".

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US-led assault in November 2004 on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

'Particularly nasty'

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.


Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful
Global Security

UK used white phosphorus
Italian TV accuses US
Italian interview

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits a person's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

Britain's Defence Secretary John Reid said UK forces had used white phosphorus in Iraq, but not as "anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action".

The UK Ministry of Defence said its use was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told the BBC: "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."

end of arguement
game over.

__________________________________________________________

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'

By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

Published: 23 November 2005

The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.

Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing. After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.

Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.

Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.

"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.

Yesterday Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent in Nassiriya in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city.

The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.

Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".

The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

I haven't seen any such people (if they even exist) come around here.





Is there a cite for this first position of "not having used WP"?

I've been following this story for some time, and the first position on WP that I recall was their claim that it was only used for illumination.





Indeed.





Had they said only that, they'd have been on firm ground.

Unfortunately, most of what they said was nonsensical gibberish about chemical weapons.

(And they even were absurd enough to call napalm a "gas".)





"Professor" Paul Rodgers is a liar, and the "Department of Peace Studies" is an anti-American propaganda organization.

Re: end of arguement


I accuse everyone who was connected to the production of that goofy Italian video of being a bunch of idiots.





That was anti-Saddam propaganda.





Hardly anomalous. He's just never seen a body that was left out in the sun for a few weeks before.





What questions?

We are not a party to it, but we observe it voluntarily.

And as a "smoke device with incidental incendiary properties", WP is not covered by the protocol in the first place.

I'm interested in all these details, find the thread hard to read for all the - well, I can't call it hyperbole since it seems warranted - but the blowhard stuff is hard to get past. Do you, SteveWonder, who I probably agree with but am not sure, have any other tone of voice but hysteria? Not that hysteria isn't appropriate, but it isn't immediately useful for communication.

no im usually hysterical whilst posting since its the only time im motivated to post, apart from now where i am just trying to remve boredom.

I can answer any questions you may have on the issue.

I think I can manage to put the answers in clear and concise language (though perhaps other people should be the judge of that ).

Sorry I was crabby about tone. Sometimes one's reaction to arguments is heightened by tones of voice in threads read in the recent past.. having nothing to do with the immediate thread.