November 10, 200520 yr U.S. used chemical weapons in Iraq? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle325560.ece 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. Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq. The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday. 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. Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq. The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.
November 10, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so?
November 10, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? Das hates freedom. He's not a freedom lover. He's freedom hater. We're freedom lovers. Don't tell Canada.
November 10, 200520 yr a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988. Wasn't that a proven happening?
November 10, 200520 yr Hopefully this isnt true for the sake of the country. But I wouldnt put it past some higher ups in the military. They want to use their toys and dont care who gets hurt.
November 10, 200520 yr f*** those f***ers. Theres my 10 seconds of military talk. So vague that you could be talking about the US military, you could be talking about the Iraqis. Who knows?
November 10, 200520 yr It was sarcasm Buckeye. Chemical weapons are banned for a reason. As a country who likes to think itr has the moral high ground, we should practice what we preach to other nations. Unexcusable.
November 10, 200520 yr It isn't proven that these attacks actually took place, and the fact that the TV station airing this is RAI (let me guess...RAI 3) does not add to the credibility. Not to say it didn't happen but in this world of propaganda it's hard to read between the lines and see the truth.
November 10, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? hating America?. because i said it would be shocking that we used them? because i said we can use them and nobody else can? i mean its not like dont preach to other nations about not using biological weapons all the time....would really suck and would REALLY hurt our image in the world. what we have suffered so far courtsey of Bush would be nothing compared to if this were true. I dont hate freedom. I hate stupid idiots. Stupid idiots are running this country.
November 10, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? hating America?. because i said it would be shocking that we used them? because i said we can use them and nobody else can? i mean its not like dont preach to other nations about not using biological weapons all the time....would really suck and would REALLY hurt our image in the world. what we have suffered so far courtsey of Bush would be nothing compared to if this were true. I dont hate freedom. I hate stupid idiots. Stupid idiots are running this country. Shammy is a sarcastic one. Pretty sure he agrees with you. Or maybe he quit his hippy ways and now loves war. :blink:
November 10, 200520 yr In about 30 or 40 years, we will be looking back on this time period (late 80's thru 00's) as one of the most poorly administered eras in the history of the United States. Aside from a relatively effective Clinton term (which by the way, is responsible in part for the terrorist attacks), we've experienced nothing but ineptitude and horrible decision making from our great leaders.
November 10, 200520 yr In about 30 or 40 years, we will be looking back on this time period (late 80's thru 00's) as one of the most poorly administered eras in the history of the United States. Aside from a relatively effective Clinton term (which by the way, is responsible in part for the terrorist attacks), we've experienced nothing but ineptitude and horrible decision making from our great leaders. How history interprets events 30-40 years from current day opinion is never the same.
November 10, 200520 yr In about 30 or 40 years, we will be looking back on this time period (late 80's thru 00's) as one of the most poorly administered eras in the history of the United States. Aside from a relatively effective Clinton term (which by the way, is responsible in part for the terrorist attacks), we've experienced nothing but ineptitude and horrible decision making from our great leaders. How history interprets events 30-40 years from current day opinion is never the same. Ya, they'll look back on our failures with more cynicism and disgust than we do now.
November 10, 200520 yr In about 30 or 40 years, we will be looking back on this time period (late 80's thru 00's) as one of the most poorly administered eras in the history of the United States. Aside from a relatively effective Clinton term (which by the way, is responsible in part for the terrorist attacks), we've experienced nothing but ineptitude and horrible decision making from our great leaders. How history interprets events 30-40 years from current day opinion is never the same. ya thats usually when you start to get a fair picture of the inner workings of an administration with less bias then during or right after.
November 10, 200520 yr In about 30 or 40 years, we will be looking back on this time period (late 80's thru 00's) as one of the most poorly administered eras in the history of the United States. Aside from a relatively effective Clinton term (which by the way, is responsible in part for the terrorist attacks), we've experienced nothing but ineptitude and horrible decision making from our great leaders. How history interprets events 30-40 years from current day opinion is never the same. ya thats usually when you start to get a fair picture of the inner workings of an administration with less bias then during or right after. I'm not biased, what are you talking about :shifty
November 10, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? hating America?. because i said it would be shocking that we used them? because i said we can use them and nobody else can? i mean its not like dont preach to other nations about not using biological weapons all the time....would really suck and would REALLY hurt our image in the world. what we have suffered so far courtsey of Bush would be nothing compared to if this were true. I dont hate freedom. I hate stupid idiots. Stupid idiots are running this country. Shammy is a sarcastic one. Pretty sure he agrees with you. Or maybe he quit his hippy ways and now loves war. :blink: ya i'm on dope on that one.
November 11, 200520 yr a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988. Wasn't that a proven happening? Yes, that this article is most likely bulls***. We would have found out months ago. Especially when the article claims it has been used before.
November 13, 200520 yr The use of white phosporus at the operational level is really, really unlikely and unnecessary. I don't understand why you would ignore this and believe this article right away, give our soldiers and nco's the benefit of the doubt. It's fine if you don't trust Bush or some of the brass-helmet sh*t heads, but he isn't the one deciding what type of munitions to use in offensives in Iraq (thank God for that). It's not like Bush is on the phone with the commanders on the ground saying "Eh, hey guys, ahhh, tengo un idealico, that is Spanish for idea, why don't you boys put syphillus cultures in your mortar shells that'd be hilarious." During the opening bombardment in 03', my Egyptian INR teacher said Arab media were totally reporting that the U.S. was dropping atomic bombs on Baghdad, lol! So, yeah, treat these sorts of stories with a grain of salt before you jump to conclusions. Whatever, I hate how things are now, you can't even fancy to reason with someone if you don't share the same views as them.
November 14, 200520 yr Would be redundant and hypocritical American policy if they did... Kinda like how Reagan gave millions of Tax dollars, Military and CIA aid to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Afghanistan invasion by Russia but not expect him to go after us...Sillyness at it's pinnacle
November 14, 200520 yr Would be redundant and hypocritical American policy if they did... Kinda like how Reagan gave millions of Tax dollars, Military and CIA aid to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Afghanistan invasion of Russia but not expect him to go after us...Sillyness at it's pinnacle Hindsight is 20/20. At the time the USSR was the enemy, not islamic extremists.
November 14, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? Das hates freedom. He's not a freedom lover. He's freedom hater. We're freedom lovers. Don't tell Canada. I love the Republicans who use "hating Freedom" as a defense for their silly policies... The only people who hate freedom are Senate and Congressional Republicans...and those who voted for the Brady bill...
November 14, 200520 yr wouldnt that be shocking. but yet nobody else can..... Why do you hate America so? Das hates freedom. He's not a freedom lover. He's freedom hater. We're freedom lovers. Don't tell Canada. I love the Republicans who use "hating Freedom" as a defense for their silly policies... The only people who hate freedom are Senate and Congressional Republicans...and those who voted for the Brady bill... He was being sarcastic.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.