U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

blatham,

I was merely trying to explain to you how I felt. I, in no way, said I was right and anyone else was wrong. They were my opinions. You have yours. I have mine. Others have theirs.

Momma Angel

Indeed.

blatham,

Thank you.

These threads do seem to get off on the wrong track. Let's try again, shall we?

I find it interesting that such a religious person as yourself, momma angel, would even read this thread. What type of comments did you expect to read? Has America now prohibited the right to freedom of speech? Am I not entitled to MY opinion, as you consistently state YOURS?

I certainly do not admire America. Why would I? Ask yourself why the rest of the world does not like America. Oh yes, you can't get into that. How convenient. You are persistent in trying to 'label' me, something you bashed me for on another thread. You do not know me, you know only what I have told you (very little). I shall continue to condemn America for what it is doing. If more Americans would do the same thing perhaps the world would be in a better situation. Most intelligent literate Americans know that they are in deep, well.... poop. Most know that CNN/Fox aren't telling the truth because of who owns them.

America: Love it, or leave it. I left. And thank you, fellow Canuck (blatham) for your eloquent defense. Cursing is nothing new on this board; neither are insults. Momma Angel cloaks her insults with "i didn't mean that' or "i never said they were wrong' some such BS thing. I'm on to her.

And I will maintain that when a chemical is used against a human being and causes bodily harm, it is a chemical WEAPON.

America is just Rome all over again.

WHATEVER. What is your solution to the war in Iraq? When people defend an action that has caused pain, suffering, death to thousands I do get upset. Funny, I'm not a Christian but I think war is wrong. Odd that so many Christians support it. You think I'm the only one from America who denounces what they are doing? Perhaps you need to read more message boards. World opinion is quite low concerning America, MOMMA. Or did you know that? Educating America about how the rest of the world feels about them will take some time as they think they are the best. At what? Killing? Sledgehammer? I had hoped I was using something with a bit more force than that.....say....white phosphorus.

Englishmajor,

Well, I am not going to get into an argument with you. However you feel about me or what I believe or whatever is just what it is ~ how you feel.

I do not need to cloak an insult. If I were going to insult your or anyone else, I would come right out with it. Of course, I would have to check my spirit and then apologize for the wrong I had committed.

So, I prefer to end this discussion without commiting that wrong.

And how many times do I have to tell you I DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT THE WAR TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS?

W H A T E V E R.

Always check your spirit to see if you done wrong.

I would prefer to not get into any discussions with you, frankly. One sided discussions are boring.

And how many times do I have to tell you that SUPPORTING THE TROOPS IS SUPPORTING THE WAR.

DUH.

God Bless You Englishmajor. God's peace be with you. God's comfort to your family. I wish you no ill will.

Yeah. Right. Sure.

Only God himself can confer comfort. You people are presumptive. Which is a sin.

Self righteous, pious people make me want to throw up. Esp. when they are phony as a three dollar bill.

Give it a rest.

Whiny liberals do the same to me, but I try to keep that to myself. You should try doing the same.

I did not cut down that cherry tree.

MORE ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS USED BY US:

Published on Thursday, November 17, 2005 by the Independent / UK
Incendiary Weapons: The Big White Lie
US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah - and beyond. Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical

by Andrew Buncombe, Kim Sengupta, Colin Brown

The Iraqi government is to investigate the United States military's use of white phosphorus shells during the battle of Fallujah - an inquiry that could reveal whether American forces breached a fundamental international weapons treaty.

Iraq's acting Human Rights minister, Narmin Othman, said last night that a team would be dispatched to Fallujah to try to ascertain conclusively whether civilians had been killed or injured by the incendiary weapon. The use of white phosphorus (WP) and other incendiary weapons such as napalm against civilians is prohibited.

The announcement came as John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, faced mounting calls for an inquiry into the use of WP by British forces as well as what Britain knew about its deployment by American troops. Mr Reid said that he would look into the matter.

The move by the Iraqi government and the growing concern at Westminster follows the Pentagon's confirmation to The Independent earlier this week that WP had been used during the battle of Fallujah last November and the presentation of persuasive evidence that civilians had been among the victims.

The fresh controversy over Fallujah, which has raged for a full 12 months, was initially sparked last week by a documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, which claimed there were numerous civilian casualties. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday he would "not be surprised" if WP had been used by US forces elsewhere in Iraq.

Lt-Col Barry Venable said the incendiary shells were a regular part of the troops' munitions. "I would not rule out the possibility that it has been used in other locations." The Pentagon's admission of WP's use - it can burn a person down to the bone - has proved to be a huge embarrassment to some elements of the US government.

In a letter to this newspaper, the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, claimed that US forces "do not use napalm or WP as weapons" .

Confronted with the Pentagon's admission, an embassy spokesperson said Mr Tuttle would not be commenting further and "all questions on WP" should be referred to the Pentagon. The US embassy in Rome had issued a similar denial.

The size or scale of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Iraqi government is unclear, and it is not known when its investigators will arrive in Fallujah. An official with the human rights ministry said that while it was also not known how long the inquiry would take, "the people of Fallujah will be fully consulted". The Pentagon says the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not prohibited.

But the article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons bans their use against civilians.

Perhaps of crucial importance to the Iraqi investigators, the treaty also restricts their use against military targets "inside a concentration of civilians except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians".

Mr Reid confirmed yesterday that British troops had used WP in Iraq, though he said the shells had only been used to make smoke to obscure troops movements, which experts say is their primary function.

"Neither it nor any other munitions are used against civilians. It is not a chemical weapon," he said. Speaking at a Nato training exercise in Germany, where he was visiting British troops bound for Afghanistan, Mr Reid said the US's use of WP was a "matter for the US".

However, last week Mr Reid indicated that he would raise the issues contained within the RAI documentary if presented with evidence.

But last night MPs were openly dismissive of Mr Reid's comments and called for an inquiry, saying they had previously been misled about the US's use of napalm in Iraq. The US had drawn a distinction between conventional napalm and updated Mk 77 firebombs, which experts say are virtually identical.

Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: "I think there is an issue here about whether the chemical weapons convention should be strengthened to include this particular substance because it is defined as an incendiary not a chemical weapon, therefore it is excluded from certain definitions."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: " The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency. The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide." So far, the fall-out in the US over the revelation has been minimal. But the former president Bill Clinton yesterday told students at the American University of Dubai that he did not agree with invasion of Iraq.

The battle of Fallujah, an insurgent stronghold, took place over two weeks last November. It led to the displacement of 300,000 people. Reports from refugee camps and from an Iraqi doctor who stayed in the city during the fighting suggest numerous civilians suffered burns and "melting skin" . Photographs show rows of bodies charred almost beyond recognition.

Chemical legitimately used or a WMD?

What is white phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a highly flammable incendiary material which ignites when exposed to oxygen, and will burn human skin until all the oxygen is used up. A doctor from Fallujah described victims in the US siege "who had their skin melted".

White phosphorus, known as WP or Willy Pete in the military, flares in spectacular bursts with a yellow flame when fired from artillery shells and produces dense white smoke. It is used as a smokescreen for troop movements and to illuminate a battlefield.

Is it a chemical weapon?

No. White phosphorus has thermal properties which burn by heating everything around it, rather than chemical properties which attack the body's life systems . It therefore does not fall under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. But protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations.

So what is all the fuss about?

The US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, said in a letter to The Independent that "US forces do not use napalm or phosphorus as a weapon. " The US position was that white phosphorus used as a smokescreen was legitimate - a position outlined by John Reid, the Defence Secretary, yesterday.

But a Pentagon statement on Tuesday appears to have shifted the argument. It said that US troops had used the white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgents. The State Department meanwhile corrected a statement, according to which white phosphorus was "fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Now the argument focuses on whether those being targeted were insurgents or civilians, and, of course, in a place like Fallujah, this grey area gives the US more of a get-out clause.

Humanitarian law distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. If the white phosphorus was used against insurgents they qualify as combatants and there has been no protocol breach.

Both the US and the UK have signed the convention, but Washington declared at the time of the signing of protocol III in 1995 that its military doctrine would abide by the protocol's provisions. These stipulate that the military distinguishes between military and civilian targets.

If it turns out that civilians were killed, what legal recourse is there?

If an Iraqi investigation provides evidence that civilians were killed by white phosphorus as a weapon, there is no recourse under the Conventional Weapons Convention.

However, the 1977 first protocol to the Geneva Conventions could be invoked. The United States has signed but not ratified the protocol which relates to the 4th Convention which considers the treatment of civilians.

Article 35 of the protocol makes it clear that the use and methods of use of "weapons of warfare are not unlimited." Any weapon or use of weapon that causes "superfluous or unnecessary suffering" is outlawed. The indiscriminate use of phosphorus on a civilian population would be covered.

Breaches of the Geneva Conventions are brought by individual countries and are usually heard by the United Nations at Security Council level, or in the International Court of Justice.

Peter Carter QC, an expert in international law and chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said the latest US admissions raised serious concerns about whether white phosphorus was indiscriminately used against civilians. He called for an independent inquiry, possibly through the United Nations, into the use of white phosphorus in Iraq.

Why has all this come out so long after the Fallujah siege?

An Italian television documentary last week, accused the US of using white phosphorus in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians at Fallujah.

This was denied by the Pentagon, but witnesses in the US military's Field Artillery magazine described firing '"shake and bake" missions at insurgents and high explosive shells to "take them out". The Independent's coverage of the RAI documentary and fallout prompted a letter from Ambassador Tuttle.

What does the US ambassador say now?

No comment. He referred all questions to the Pentagon.

Anne Penketh and Robert Verkaik

Bush's Arsenal

The allegation

Napalm/Mark 77s

Widespread reports during the initial US-led invasion in March 2003 suggested marines had dropped incendiary bombs over the Tigris river and the Saddam canal on the way to Baghdad.

Cluster bombs

33 civilians, including many children, were reportedly killed in a US cluster bomb attack on Hilla, south of Baghdad. Reports of attacks on Basra were also widespread.

White Phosphorus

Coalition troops were reported to have used WP indiscriminately against civilians and insurgents during the Fallujah offensive of November 2004.

What the US said

Napalm/Mark 77s

The Pentagon denied reports it had used napalm, saying it had last used the weapon in 1993 and destroyed its last batch in 2001. "We don't even have that in our arsenal."

Cluster bombs

General Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said coalition forces dropped nearly 1,500 cluster bombs during the war and only 26 fell within 1,500ft of civilian areas.

White Phosphorus

"[WP was used] very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." US State Department

How the UK backed them up

Napalm/Mark 77s

"The US have confirmed to us they have not used Mk 77 firebombs, essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time." Adam Ingram, Armed Forces minister, January 2004

Cluster bombs

The MoD said it supported the use of cluster bombs against legitimate military targets to protect British troops and civilians, insisting care was taken to avoid populated areas.

White Phosphorus

"Use of phosphorus by the US is a matter for the US," Tony Blair's spokesman said yesterday.

How the US came clean

Napalm/Mark 77s

It took five months for the US to admit its marines had used Mk 77 firebombs (a close relative of napalm) in the invasion. The Pentagon said their functions were "remarkably similar".

Cluster bombs

General Myers admitted: "In some cases, we hit those targets knowing there would be a chance of collateral damage." It was "unfortunate" that "we had to make these choices".

White Phosphorus

Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Barry Venable said this week that WP had been used, "to fire at the enemy" in Iraq. "It burns... it's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."

How the UK came clean

Napalm/Mark 77s

"First of all they didn't use napalm. They used a firebomb. It doesn't stick to your skin like napalm, it doesn't have the horrible effects of that. " John Reid, Defence Secretary

Cluster bombs

Adam Ingram, Armed Forces minister, said: "There were troops [and] equipment in and around built-up areas, therefore bombs were used to take out the threat to our troops."

White Phosphorus

The Government maintains it used WP in Iraq only to lay smoke screens. " We do not use white phosphorus against civilians," the Defence Secretary John Reid said.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

Lets see ...

For the past 50+ years, white phosphorus hasn't been classified as anything other than a CONVENTIONAL WEAPON.

All the treatys call it conventional.

All the military definitions call it conventional.

All militarys employing them, call consider and teach that they are conventional weapons.

All 50+ years of documentation are suddenly redefined by one memo put out by a guy who probably wanted to make sure that people would pay attention to his particular memo.


Does that mean I can start writing memos to redefine long established definitions of things?

So is this thing a chemical weapon or not?

NO

I will once again re-post a great article by one of your liberal brethren who will be able to speak in a language you can understand (My Liberaleese is kind of rusty)

November 09, 2005
It's NOT Chemical Warfare!
Our liberal brethern (such as Hullabaloo, Daily Kos, Juan Cole, and many smaller blogs such as National Debunker and others) are in an uproar over an Italian investigative team's reporting that U.S. troops are using chemical warfare against Iraqis in Fallujah. Many newspapers (to include Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor) are picking up the story, also, and rather than CHECKING THE DAMN FACTS, they all rush to judgement and assume that the story is true - that the evil American military imperalist dogs are deliberately targeting Iraqi noncombatants with phosphorus bombs and napalm.

People, get a grip. This is exactly what Repubs want to see - they like it when you swallow this swill, when you blindly attack the alleged actions of military troops without understanding what you are reading. Yes, drive those of us with military backgrounds out of the liberal camps and back into the safe, comforting arms of the national security Repubs. You idiots. Actually, there are a few sane liberals over at Kos, like Ernest here.

Let's lay down the facts. First, there are no phosphorus bombs. There are white phosphorus smoke projectiles or cartridges - and they are not incendiary devices. The purpose of the 120-mm Mortar Smoke (WP) Cartridge is to provide a white smoke cloud to obscure the enemy's view of your troops' position or their movement. We like WP because when you're under fire by snipers or groups of hostile people that you can't immediately reach out and touch, you can call for fire and get a nice, thick smoke screen between you and them very, very quickly. Yes, WP has some nasty qualities, and maybe particles of the WP fall off and hit people, but it's quick and it saves U.S. military lives. Because the fighting is in an urban area, some of those people hurt might be noncombatants. But we don't use "phosphorus munitions" to target and hurt civilians. Not only is it very inefficient (why not just drop HE?), it's not moral. And our soldiers (relatively speaking) are better than that.

I blogged back in June about the Mark-77 Mod 5 incendiary munition. The MK-77 Mod 5 uses kerosene-based jet fuel and a polystyrene thickener, instead of the older composition of benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene. The term "napalm" comes from a combination of the words naphthalene and palmitate, which were added to gasoline in World Wars II to create the fuel for fire bombs and flamethrowers. As technology developed, better formulas were developed, and modern incendiary munitions (Viet Nam-era and later) did not use either component. Much like the term "Xerox" has been used as a generic term for any copier, the term "napalm" has nonetheless stuck to these types of "fire bombs," more because of the similarity of the flame component caused by the use of these munitions.

Second point. Neither napalm or WP munitions are chemical warfare munitions. They have chemical fills, but the effectiveness and utility of the munitions do not rely on the physical properties of the chemical fills. Chemical warfare agents, such as mustard, sarin, and VX, are super-toxic chemicals that will kill you upon exposure. The U.S. military has made a clear distinction between chemical-filled munitions and chemical warfare munitions since World War II, and the funny thing is, most of the world's nations agree with us (check out the Chemical Weapons Convention sometime). IT'S NOT CHEMICAL WARFARE. It's conventional warfare, period, when a military force uses an incendiary weapon to attack an adversary's position. There is nothing like flame to scare the crap out of the enemy, and it's very effective.

Third point. If you believe this crap, this propaganda (warning, graphic photos), that this news team got, that there are burned and "melted" bodies of women and children, without questioning the forensics data or motives of either the journalists or the Iraqi sympathizers, well, I can't help you there. But honest to god, do you have even an ounce of skepticism in your heads? When you see pictures of illumination flares floating down on parachutes and the story is saying (or suggesting) that those are chunks of WP falling, you have to say, "huh? maybe this guy is misleading me..."

The guys and gals fighting in Iraq aren't hired by the Bush administration. Lord knows I don't like how the Bush administration got us into Iraq, but I don't question the motives and training of the military men and women over there (well, except for a few frustrated MPs and MI types, maybe). I do know my boys wouldn't do this crap - they came from the same towns and cities you all did. Let's not start by assuming the worst of them. Let's see the evidence, be unbiased and question the findings, talk to some people that know their asses from holes in the ground chemical warfare from conventional warfare, and be civil about this issue.

We don't use illegal or immoral weapons in war. We're the good guys. Now try to remember that we Dem-leaning types have a national security position too, and we're going to be working with the same military leaders and people that you're questioning now. Get wise. Otherwise it's going to be a very long three years - or more - if you don't.

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/its_not_chemica.html

Bumblebeeboogie post: (copied)
The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a "terribly ill-conceived method," demonstrating an Army interested "only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun." And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

THAT'S THE POINT.

freedom4free, what's your point? What's your source? The Pentagon? Saddam 'may have used' doesn't imply he did. Even if he did, why are the Americans using such a thing against people they SAY they are freeing? God help anyone whom the Americans 'free'. It usually means army tanks, bombs, and death.

Anyway, GWB popularity rating is plummeting. Took you Yanks awhile, but I guess the war ain't PC anymore? No more flags flying from cars? When are you going to leave those people in Iraq alone (and elsewhere on the planet) and mind your own damn business?

Its not whether Saddam used it or not, but it seems to me that the Department of Defense used the term "Chemical Weapons" with regards to W.P.

Above and Beyond the Call of Duty, America?
***************************************

Published on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 by the Guardian/UK
Behind the Phosphorus Clouds are War Crimes Within War Crimes

We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained

by George Monbiot

The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree".

I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died.

But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

The insurgents, of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions? It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for the first world war will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it.

But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".

I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued: "The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."

But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets." It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians.

This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?

www.monbiot.com

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

SAY WHAT, FEDRAL? It's ok to be wrong.....


Published on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 by the Independent / UK
US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon'
by Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

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.


© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

_________________
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. (Oscar Wilde)

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. (Mark Twain)