Religions > Atheism > Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq...
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
07 Nov 2005 07:19:34 PM |
| Object: |
Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 08:35:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:47:33 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
I think the point is one of the excuses Dumpya used to go
into Iraq was that Saddam had and used chemical
weapons. If the US used chemical weapons against Iraq,
it would be the epitome of hypocrisy.
If the US used chemical weapons in Iraq, not one of us has
heard of it yet.
:
As this issue is relying more and more on technical rather than
practical details, there is most definitely news of chemical weapons
being deployed and used in Iraq.
An example:
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/704408.php
So, now you HAVE heard of the US using chemical weapons in Iraq.
And here's Bush's offical approval for their use:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-01.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
09 Nov 2005 09:28:49 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
As this issue is relying more and more on technical rather
than practical details,
Put more plainly: People are lying.
Yup.
They are misrepresenting conventional weapons as "Chemical
Weapons" as defined by international laws & treaties (i.e.
"Lying").
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
07 Nov 2005 11:40:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 23:05:53 -0600, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
<bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote
We should only use "Nice" weapons, the kind that only
kill with a blast, or send red-hot chunks of jaggered
metal ripping through bodies. Or maybe we could even
just stab everyone to death with bayonets.
But, no more "Unpleasant" weapons.
I think the point is one of the excuses Dumpya used to go into Iraq was that
Saddam had and used chemical weapons. If the US used chemical weapons
against Iraq, it would be the epitome of hypocrisy. Which is exactly what
we've come to expect from this administration.
Well, strictly speaking then, this exchange is no more than
terminological, as Tear-gas *is* officially considered a chemical
weapon.
One of the points that I am attempting to make is that the formal
distinction of a "Chemical Weapon" makes little practical sense, if
any.
I have personally seen someone badly (and permanently) injured by
White Phosphorus.
I have not seen any such thing happen with tear-gas.
If the US has ever used tear-gas in Iraq, then they have officially
used chemical weapons. That it would most likely be trivial, makes a
mockery of assuming that using "chemical weapons" is somehow
intrinsically bad. (And not, as you put it, the epitome of hypocrisy).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 10:48:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:19:34 GMT, "Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote:
The news is anything but surprising.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.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.
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
09 Nov 2005 01:20:55 PM |
|
|
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/
November 09, 2005
Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
Predictably, the "US used chemical weapons at Fallujah" story is
spreading like phosphorus fire, and the Independent reprises its
coverage today.
Interestingly, a careful reading of the latest Indy article (though not
in the print edition, where the crucial section has been omitted,
apparently due to a production error), especially when combined with a
viewing of the RAI video that was the catalyst for the story (and a bit
of research), casts grave doubt on the contention that the horrible
injuries pictured were in fact the result of phosphorus bombs.
Writing for the Independent, Andrew Buncombe summarises the claim made
by the video - which, as we saw yesterday, consisted solely of
interviews with, and images produced by, prominent anti-war activists,
but no independent scientists or military experts:
"Photographic evidence gathered from the aftermath of the battle
suggests that women and children were killed by horrific burns caused
by the white phosphorus shells dropped by US forces."
And later:
"Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in
Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin
has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus
shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is
banned by treaty."
The certainty of the statement "by the effects of phosphorus shells" is
notable.
Yesterday's Independent article, following the lead of the RAI
broadcast, made much of the fact that clothing was intact on many of
the burned bodies:
"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 [in actuality, but as
unreported by the Independent, the director of "the Studies Centre of
Human Rights"], 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 implication is that intact clothing constitutes a unique aspect of
"appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon", as the lead
paragraph put it.
Antiwar activist Jeff Englehart (who is, unbeknownst to Independent
readers "the mouthpiece for a group of soldiers who are fighting in a
war they oppose for a president they didn't elect while the
petrochemical complex turns the blood of their fallen comrades into
oil"), the only former soldier interviewed about phosphorus use,
agrees:
"It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin
underneath the clothes."
Given the considerable stress laid on the non-burning of clothes by
both the Independent and the RAI film, it seems odd that this
statement, from today's Indy article, is passed over without comment:
"John Pike, director of the Washington-based military studies group
GlobalSecurity.Org, said the smoke caused by the bombs could confuse or
blind the enemy or mark a target. 'If it hits your clothes it will burn
your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning,' he
said."
"If it hits your clothes, it will burn your clothes". Well, that
certainly seems to undermine the assertions about intact clothes - it
seems unlikely that a victim's face could be completely "caramelised"
by the heat, while clothing just inches away was unscathed.
Unfortunately, it's (intentionally?) not clear from context in the
article whether Mr. Pike is talking about phosphorus, napalm, or both.
So I asked him:
Daily Ablution: "Were you referring to white phosphorus or napalm?"
John Pike: "White Phosphorus."
Referring to another quote from yesterday's Independent story, I asked:
Daily Ablution: "Are burns caused by white phosphorus consistent with
'bodies burned but clothes intact'?"
John Pike: "No."
Here's more, from the Emergency War Surgery NATO Handbook:
"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white
phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the
air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the
cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition
of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."
So ... most cutaneous injury caused by this commonly used weapon
results from "the ignition of clothing". This, along with Mr. Pike's
observation, casts grave doubt upon a key basis for the assertions that
phosphorus was used.
It's not clear just what the images in the RAI video show, but, based
on the intact clothing, this evidence suggests that it something other
than charred phosphorus victims. While he hasn't seen the video, and so
couldn't comment directly about it, Mr. Pike told me that the Indy's
description of "clothes largely intact but skin dissolved, caramelised
or turned the consistency of leather" sounded like "generic corpses"
that had been exposed to the environment for a couple of weeks.
However, one doubts that this aspect of the story will get a great deal
of coverage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
