U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

No surprise after what we saw and heard about the way in which the media were kept away from the operation in Fallujah. Italian tv has the bodies and the American testimony to prove that the U.S. is conducting chemical warfare in Iraq. I just saw the whole documentary thanks to an Italian friend. You can download the original or the English version here: Falluja, la strage nascosta. Caution. Some of the footage is graphic. So are the loads of pictures in the Rainews24 website.

The BBC has an article about it, but it does not nearly cover all the facts mentioned in the documentary. The documentary also provides evidence that Mark 77, a new form of napalm, was used in the attack.

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

In the documentary a witness, biologist Mohamad Tareq, 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."

*Edited to add graphic caution

I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.

Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Weapons
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [1] The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol.

---

Not nice, but apparently legal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.

Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.

---

Now where did I store that ostrich smiley? https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/...ruebel22zc.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not nice, but apparently legal...

---

Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?

We have this substance for indirect fire usage. It is SOP for certain targets.

U.S. Government Marine Sergeant Battle Studies Manual (MCI 8005):

Quote:

---

It is important to select the proper fuse and type of rounds to get maximum effect on target. Basically, high explosive rounds with variable time fuses (HE/VT) produce air bursts that are effective against troops in the open, troops in fighting holes with no overhead cover, and light vehices...etc...etc...etc... There are also several rounds designed for special purposes.They include improved conventional munitions (ICM), white phosphorous (WP), artillery delivered mines (FASCAM), etc.

---

This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.

Redleg would probably be a definitive authorty here and aid in dispelling rumours.

This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.

Yeah , you can use it for marking targets , but of course by using it to mark targets it does mean that you are also using it against those targets , catch 22 .

where did I store the dictionary meaning of "fact" smiley?


:stupido3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?

---

No, but I think there is a difference between incendiary weapons and chemical weapons...

AdrianII,

I don't see a need to restrict the use of white phosphorous. If you are going to bomb an area/structure, shrapnel is just as indiscriminant. These are incindiaries, not chemical weapons.

I would be shocked if we *didn't* use it. What the heck do you expect from street fighting/house clearing?

We used plenty of flamethrowers to suffocate or incinerate Japanese defenders in their caves in WWII.

We are? Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

We are? Good.

---

You'd like it if someone dropped it on your neighbourhood in twenty years when wherever you live is under occupation of some sort of evil liberal confederation?

War is so horrible...

I've been following this story today too.

Here's another source for the video, including the eyewitness reports by American soldiers. LINK I haven't had a chance to watch it yet (it's a big file), but I'll give it a download later this evening.

The US government (Dept. of State) issued a response (looks like it was in December) denying similar charges that appeared in the Arab press and in the Sunday Mirror. LINK

From the State Dept's response:

Quote:

---

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah...

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003...

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. 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.

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

---

So, essentially:

a) A denial of napalm use.
b) A denial of the use of (napalm like) Mark-77 firebombs in Fallujah.
c) A denial that phosphorus shells were fired at enemy fighters, but agreement that they were used "very sparingly" for illumination purposes.
d) A denial that US forces have used outlawed weapons in Fallujah or Iraq... but they previously stated that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when used against military forces.

Of course, one would have to give more weight to American eyewitness testimony that these weapons were used. Looking forward (sort of) to seeing the video.

The BBC story does give some of the details.

Aurelian,

Big flaw in that. They are not illegal.

My understanding was that the attack on Fallujah was pretty much a straight up fight, civilians were urged to leave. This meant the marines could use the usual armaments, which includes Willie Pete. Doesn't surprise me at all. Nasty stuff, but it's not like a poison gas. You are either hit with it or not, same as shrapnel from a normal shell, it just burns like hell afterward. If WP was used, on purpose, against civilian targets, then there is a problem, otherwise why is this news?

Awaiting Redleg's comment on this one as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

AdrianII,

I don't see a need to restrict the use of white phosphorous. If you are going to bomb an area/structure, shrapnel is just as indiscriminant. These are incindiaries, not chemical weapons.

---

Judging by the footage they were bombarding an area the size of Manhattan with clusters of phosphorus bombs, each of which kills every person in a 150 yard radius. Now I understand why civilians were burned to the bone in their beds and buried ever so quickly whilst the media were kept at a distance.

If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.

Interesting stuff as well about the 'accidental' deaths of non-embedded journalists who were working of the story of Fallujah just when they were killed. Others had their Fallujah footage destroyed. Well, we have been there before in this forum in connection with the killing of the Spanish cameraman.

White Phosphorus is standard protocal for marking targets for Airstrikes. It has a blast radius of about 50-100 meters with scrapnel going as far as other artillery rounds have been known to go - up to 400-500 meters depending on the terrian.

Will it burn a city down if used in the a way not consistent with marking targets - yep - it will burn through just about anything.

Now I won't get into the hype about the article - since I have not read the complete thing - I will only comment about what I know of standard pratice of the United States Army while I was in. Other information that might be of use.

There is no treaty that I am aware of that the United States has signed that classifies this type of munition as chemical warfare.

The use of smoke as chemical warfare is one of the negotating games that the former USSR used to when discussion Nuclear and Chemical weapons during the Cold War. It was a political point concerning all smoke muntions which the United States has several types. One being HC smoke which if its dense enough will cause you permament harm or even death.

White Phosphorus Felt Wedge - which lays a nice smoke screen quickly because of the White Phosphorus being in Felt Wedges - burns a lot slower and even thicker then the explosive shell.

White Phosphorus High Explosive - just what it means it blows up sending a large and quickly building smoke cloud. Standard use is for marking targets for aircraft, initial build of battlefield smoke screen, and for destroying enemy fuel dumps.

Now what the Mark 77 is I really can't remember because it has been a number of years since I have called in Airstrikes or planned fires on a target - what I do know is that it is not a white phosphorus based bomb - I image it is one of the new generation of fuel-air incendary bombs. Not Naplem and not white phosphorus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

a) A denial of napalm use.

---

And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.
:bow:

Wiki is useful to get the jist of something if not the indepth accuracy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

The Mark 77 is a US 750-lb (340-kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb that carries 110 gallons (415 litres) of a fuel gel mix that is the direct successor to napalm.

Mk-77s were used by the US Marine Corps during the First Gulf War. Approximately 500 were dropped, reportedly mostly on Iraqi-constructed oil filled trenches. Thirty Mk-77s were also used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm. The Mk-77 is the only incendiary bomb currently in use by the United States military. Another incendiary weapon - white phosphorus - is allegedly being used as an incendiary weapon in the current Iraq War. White phosphorus or 'Willie Pete' is used primarly as a smoke-screening agent. Only the US and Russia continue to invent and use gelled fuel bombs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.

Yeah , you can use it for marking targets , but of course by using it to mark targets it does mean that you are also using it against those targets , catch 22 .

---

You are for once sir, 100% correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.
:bow:

---

And why do you suppose I keep my comments to what I knew about the munition there Adrian its because I have not watched the documentary and have only read the news print about the documentry. In that there was some valid points and some hype. Now when I get home after work and in the morning I will watch the documentary to see if I can tell anything from it that is revelant to the discussion - until then I will stick to a factual discussion of what I know verus falling for the typical hype discussions that involve any points about Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals...

---

I am not completely convinced that they were all “civilians”.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Night night.

---

Don’t forget to brush.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I am not completely convinced that they were all “civilians”

---

Would the term 'collateral damage' improve your conscience, then? Or do you believe that every citizen in Iraq to be non-civilian? If not, then how big a procentage is civilians?

At the end of a book called Operation Gomorrah, about the bombing of Hamburgh, the authour describes a seldom told story about the aftermath of an Allied raid using phosphorus bombs.

I've read many, many books about the history of war and little else compared to this for sheer horror except possibly reading about the French Army's retreat from Moscow.

There's not use me paraphrasing. Read the book and read what is one of the darkest stories ever written. It will give the truest impression of phosphorus bombing and it's consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.

---

Like I've no authority to say it's real or not, I'll just bet that this is real, seeing it in context.
I still wonder what does it matter if the weapon is legal or not, if it's chemical or not...What does it matter? Is it killing people? Is the government trying to hide it? Perhaps, but that's what matters to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.

---

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary. ~:rolleyes:

You won't gain any sympathy from me for Fallujah. Folks had ample warning to get their butts out. The enemy had to be hit and removed. Civilians get killed in war. If you target the concentrations of the enemy or strategic targets, you can never be certain that civilians won't be killed. Doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for civilians, but some of these "civilians" were the family (and extended family) of insurgents using their own city as safe haven. If they are going to use these areas as battle zones, then the areas are going to end up destroyed, simple as that. Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.

I don´t know with whom to agree, I think there´s some truth in most statements. Well, on one hand RH is right, because I often wonder what civilians are doing in a warzone? Why don´t they flee BEFORE the enemy comes? I can´t really tell, I´m lucky and happy to have grown up in peace, I personally would just try to get out, before the bombs come falling on my house, staying there till the last minute doesn´t save my house anyway.

On the other hand, seeing those pictures of people completely burned and whatnot, I really felt sorry for them and think their deaths were most likely very painful.
Now if I say those women chose to stay there, what about their children?
And whose fault is it? the US´s for using those weapons or the mother´s for staying there with her child? and what if the US had used more conventional methods?
Had they saved lives by that or would there just be people not burned but with bullets in their heads?

Well, I don´t think I´ve got any good answers so I´ll just throw these thoughts into the round and go to sleep aswell.

You are for once sir, 100% correct.
I am always correct Red , you should know that by now~;)

Still , the White Phosphorous can't be that good , the Dept. of Def. just allocated (in September) $23million to improve it .

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the insurgents started launching WP mortar rounds at coilition bases , just for target marking of course ~;)
Some silly bugger didn't have enough men (or the orders to do so) to guard the arms dump that contained crates of them , and someone managed to steal lorryloads of explosives including WP from that facility .

You won't gain any sympathy from me for Fallujah. Folks had ample warning to get their butts out. The enemy had to be hit and removed.
Oh yeah , because the operation in Fallujah was going to deliver a crippling blow to the insurgency and bring peace and stability , that worked didn't it ~:rolleyes:
How many major assaults on other towns have taken place in the last 3 months with the same aim ?
Are there now more or less insurgent attacks ? (clue .....October was really good/bad example both for number of attacks and casualties caused) .

edit to add I often wonder what civilians are doing in a warzone?
Since the whole country is a war zone then where are the civilians supposed to go ?

Quote:

---

I'm with Red Harvest on this.

---

Yeah me too. Red when I call you a liberal or a democrat at least you are in the mold of a Lieberman or a Truman. When push comes to shove at least you stand with America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You are for once sir, 100% correct.
I am always correct Red , you should know that by now~;)

Still , the White Phosphorous can't be that good , the Dept. of Def. just allocated (in September) $23million to improve it .

---

Now here is a tough one for you - which round was it allocated for?



There is two different artillery rounds which use white phosphorous.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/smoke.htm

I would image it is for the M*@% since it had problems when I was in the service.

What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.

If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary. ~:rolleyes:

---

Indeed. Sarin is a chemical weapon. VX and mustard gas are chemical weapons. This is not. Lets try and keep the spin in check.

US denies using white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians

so now we have two conflicting reports. while i'm less inclined to believe in sensationalist media, the current u.s. administration doesn't have the best record when it comes to telling the truth, either.

also, the use of white phosphorus in an urban area like Falluja is banned by an international treaty: Protocol III of the CCWC. Which the United States is not a signatory of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.

If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.

---

Bingo, and there we get to the heart of the matter. Many people, including myself, would find the "my country, right or wrong" attitude slightly easier to adopt if they felt their government was being honest with them.

I got through about 10 minutes of the "documentary" and then gave up- there's no way anyone can get anything useful from that. Im not saying it's claims are false, but the film is clearly skewed- I've seen enough propaganda on both sides to recognize when Im being fed a line and not being told the whole story.

If that case is going to be made it's going to take some better evidence.

You need some sleep AdrianII, or at least to gain an understanding of what warfare truly is. Its not pretty or noble, and people die.

Do you think someone blown up by a high explosive round would look any better, or be any less dead? Thats what war is.

I dont need combat experience to tell me that war is hell. Apparently you do.

It is so anal to post such obvious propaganda and act as if this is some sort of actual story, simply to give credence to the insurgency and take a crack at the US.

Do you just not understand the difference between chemical and incendiary, or were you trying to stir up anti-US sentiment amongst those who do not?

This piece of work deserves a big "~:rolleyes:"....

Like a couple of the earlier posts said Imo if they are using it its fine but to if they are lying about just to aviod a PR nightmare they deserve jail time. We deserve to know what is happning to fighting men

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.

---

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

---

Again, how the hell is it chemical warfare?~:handball: (that's if its true to begin with- which is less than clear.)

Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.

Crazed Rabbit

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

---

That is nonsense. It is NOT chemical warfare, it is incindiary. It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud. If combustion qualifies as chemical, then you can eliminate any explosives or gun powder.

It is not a war crime. Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud.

---

You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.

---

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer. ~:rolleyes:

---

And I just love it when people deliberately mischaracterize arguments to score points.... *cough* strawman *cough*

Quote:

---

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

---

Someone is on an anti-American bent tonight....

Wikipedia has an interesting article on white phosphorus. It calls white phosphorus "weight for weight" the "most effective smoke-screening agent known", and it discusses its various advantages, particularly for use in grenades and mortar bombs. I have to wonder to what degree it was being used for smoke-screening in Fallujah. It is also used as an incendiary. The State Department claims it was only used for spotting, but I can see how the PR types could be making that claim since:

Quote:

---

"the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol."

---

Even though we haven't signed the protocol, I'm sure that the US government wouldn't want to advertise its use of white phosphorus near concentrations of civilians. Bad for our image and all. That's why they said the military only used it for aerial spotting.

If they were lying, it would be about par for the course. Apparently, as Adrian II mentioned, the US misled the UK government on its use of MK-77 firebombs:

Quote:

---

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The London Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position." LINK

---

Like I said, about par for the course. The US military reminds me of Maxwell Smart: "Would you believe that we've never used incendiary weapons in Iraq? No? Well, would you believe that we've only used them for aerial spotting? No? What if I told you we only used them against one insurgent standing alone in a field?"

This is from the Wikipedia article on Fallujah:

Quote:

---

"Reports by the Washington Post suggest that US armed forces used white phosphorus grenades and/or artillery shells, creating walls of fire in the city. Doctors working inside Fallujah report seeing melted corpses of suspected insurgents. The use of WP ammunition was confirmed from various independent sources, including US troops who had suffered WP burns due to 'friendly fire'."

---

"Democracy Now!" covered this story today. They broadcast part of the documentary, and their website has a transcript. LINK

On the issue of white phosphorus as a "chemical weapon": It's not officially considered a chemical weapon even though, strictly speaking, it is a chemical used as a weapon. It's still plenty nasty.


Reply to an earlier post:

Quote:

---

Big flaw in that. They are not illegal. - Red Harvest

---

I must not have said that clearly enough:

d) A denial that US forces have used outlawed weapons in Fallujah or Iraq... but they previously stated that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when used against military forces.

By that, I meant that the State Department denied the use of "outlawed weapons"... which was a meaningless statement because they already told us that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when you use them against military targets.

I realize that they are not illegal under US law if used in that context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.

---

BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.

Quote:

---

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

---

You mean like NATO? Or liberating your nation?

It is attitudes like you are exhibiting right now that keep us wary of participating more in global treaties like this. Your abuse of the system is abhorrent to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.

---

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus, the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds,and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.

---

While white phosphorous does not seem to be officially classified as a chemical weapon in the relevant treaties, it can certainly be argued that this classification does not fully reflect the effects that white phosphorous has.

The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.

Lead bullets can poison you too... but they are defined as weapons that kill via hydrostatic shock not chemical

I don't think the US was out to kill civilians. If some got killed it is regrettable, but this is war. They used phosphorus bombs and people got burned to death, as apposed to them dropping normal high explosives and people ending up in little pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

but they are defined as weapons that kill via hydrostatic shock not chemical

---

Yes, and if you get hit by a shell of sarin gas you are probably crushed to death and still nobody would argue that sarin is not a chemical weapon.

The relative importance of the malicious effects of the weapon certainly is an issue here and I am not so sure that the toxic component of white phosphorous as a weapon is so negligable that it warrants shrugging off any claims that it has characteristics of a chemical weapon with snappish remarks (like the one my initial comment was directed at).

I guess it can be used against troops, it seems like a pretty bad way to go but hey. If women and children were bbq'ed then it was probably used in an urban area, which is not a nice thing to do at all ~:eek:

Just as I thought, I can add a few more to my list.

• It may be a chemical, but it's not a chemical chemical :beatnik:
• Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war! https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/...ruebel22zc.gif
• What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself... ~:confused:

Some of you don't want to know, others only want to know who lied about what so they can blame the Bush administration. I actually want to know what happened over there and why.

Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum. In the documentary there are two American Marines sitting on a couch with a beer, speaking about what they saw and heard and did in Fallujuh, pissing away their R&R, their personal security and possibly their future because they feel that the truth must be told. That, to me, is America at its best. True soldiers are civilians in uniform, aware of their civic duties not despite, but because of the uniform they wear.

Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry
3/3/2005

An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.

Link

Phosphorus is a terrible weapon,but so are many others.The thing that i dont approve is that why did US had to use phosphorus in a area where they knew that population was still mostly there. I remember how the Russians were critizised off using artillery against villages in Tzechenia, how does this differ from that.I think that both US and Russians target was to kill the enemy fighters ,but they both also knew they would kill more civilians in the process then necessary. Have anyone ever thought what would happen to a person who would try to leave his home in Iraq in order to run away from an fighting area,and the insurgent fighters would notice that? He or she would be most likely be treated as an traitor and killed.
So i feel sorry for those innocent civilians in Fallujah,they had two great choises ,to die from a bullet or die burning inside a green flame.:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Just as I thought, I can add a few more to my list.

• It may be a chemical, but it's not a chemical chemical :beatnik:
• Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war! https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/...ruebel22zc.gif
• What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself... ~:confused:

Some of you don't want to know, others only want to know who lied about what so they can blame the Bush administration. I actually want to know what happened over there and why.

Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum. In the documentary there are two American Marines sitting on a couch with a beer, speaking about what they saw and heard and did in Fallujuh, pissing away their R&R, their personal security and possibly their future because they feel that the truth must be told. That, to me, is America at its best. True soldiers are civilians in uniform, aware of their civic duties not despite, but because of the uniform they wear.

Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry
3/3/2005

An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.

Link

---

I wonder if you even read this before you posted it. It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.

If your believing news articles like this as being truthful - then I will have to say that the Bush administratin is the most truthful source out there. ~:rolleyes:

Now to the video documentry.

Interesting in some ways - but several glaring problems even within the video. But I won't make comment on that since it is not revelant to the point of this thread.

So I asked myself one question regarding the video. Does it paint a picture of possible incorrect use of fuel air bombs and White Phosphorus artillery - mortar rounds? My conclusion is that it does indeed show that there was a possiblity that the military used the weapons without concern for the civilian population that remained in the city. But that wasn't what the point of Adrian's initial comments was about. What it doesn't provide evidence of is, Did the United States on purpose target civilians in the battle? Even in the Marine's re-count of shooting a car that had civilians in it - shows that they did not fire on the car with the intent to kill civilians - the car was coming at them - and they panicked.

Again the arguement that the weapons are banned - is a false one. When I was in the military working with smoke munitions it was always made perfectly clear to us what category the smoke rounds fell into - be it the HC smoke or the WP smoke. The soldier was not speaking from a point of expert knowledge - but one based upon the point the documentry wished to make. So take it with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.

---

That is the whole issue here. Your government has spread so much disinformation that I am no longer inclined to believe anything they say. If you know beforehand what is propaganda and what is not, Redleg, I would like you to share your infallible sources with us.

The Iraqi report sounds as if they found a series of symptoms that they could not attribute to specific weapons, hence the official's claim that he would not exclude any possible explanation. The Italian documentary sheds a new light on these finds. For instance on the dead animals without shot wounds, the burned human corpses with no shot wounds and intact clothes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

That is the whole issue here. Your government has spread so much disinformation that I am no longer inclined to believe anything they say. If you know beforehand what is propaganda and what is not, Redleg, I would like you to share your infallible sources with us.

The Iraqi report sounds as if they found a series of symptoms that they could not attribute to specific weapons, hence the official's claim that he would not exclude any possible explanation. The Italian documentary sheds a new light on these finds. For instance on the dead animals without shot wounds, the burned human corpses with no shot wounds and intact clothes.

---

You ever see the effects of a fuel air explosive? or of WP on the battlefield? Not in a video - but up close and personal when in the process of policing up the battlefield, you know the kind that makes you sick to the stomach while your doing it - and remains in your memory no matter how you want to forget about it.

An interesting read on the effects of WP

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm

Oh there is much I could tell you about the effects of WP and fuel air explosives - but you would probably end up calling me a war criminal - so why should I bother?

edit: its not infallable sources Adrian I just recongize BS concerning the effects of weapons when I see it.

While warning civilians in advance to leave an area and then using weapons of mass destruction against remaining soldiers is IMO warfare like any other, the way in which civilians are warned is a key issue here. If civilians aren't granted food, shelter and protection for the period they're leaving their homes, they're likely to not trust the attacker, and stay in their homes, which is why so many civilians have been killed in these attacks.

I think the Bush administration in general is behaving foolishly and recklessly in this matter as well as in others. Such small principles which could have meant they could have overthrown Saddam Hussein, and at the same time get all oil of Iraq, and at the same time EARN GOODWILL, but what they've done now is make most Iraqi civilians not trust them or even hate them, they've increased the pool of people with hatred enough to be possible recruits for terrorism, they've lost goodwill both inside the USA and in allied and friendly countries as well as in neutral and enemy countries. Not to mention that they're taking ridiculous casualties in Iraq despite an almost ridiculous technical and tactical superiority.

This is just another example of how the Bush administration fails to recognize the key issues in warfare and strategy: a good general seeks victory, not battle. A general who can defeat his enemy without fighting a single battle is the greatest of all generals. Now they're not only losing goodwill and creating hatred/new enemies, but also losing prestige and respect for their army by showing they're incapable strategists. They neither get the demonstration of power effect, nor the effect of trust and goodwill, which are the keys to eliminating any form of resistance, whether it's terrorism or war.

I don't think it matters what government is currently in the white house, if a weapon proves effective it will be used; tactics and politics are two different things. If I can chose between a splash of napalm or a bullet in my gut I'll know what I'll take. I am mainly concerned (if it is true, which I kind of doubt) that such heavy weapons are used in urban area's. If WP are inhuman, people should try to get it banned, in the meantime they can be used, but with a little restraint. A tankcrew that is hit with an anti-armour projectile die a very horrible death for example, but I see no reason to not should tanks just because it kind of tickles. Reports of burned people still wearing clothes? How? Such a weapon doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

---

When ever I here any Iraq official speak (read quotes from) I think of the minister of information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, (click for a laugh) during the beginning of the war.

Quote:

---

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

---

I don’t trust our gov to be totally honest but I sure don’t trust their gov or any of their officials to be honest either.~:handball:

Quote:

---

The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.

---

Yes, his ill-informed comment certainly was haughty. You see, that is what I was responding to. Combustion is still the key, this is an incindiary. It is not a chemical weapon like Sarin that just happens to burn and is being intentionally misclassified with a wink and a nod.

He is making a false argument, trying to extend something that has been used for decades into the "chemical weapons" category. It is DISHONEST to do so.

Water is a chemical. So is salt. I've actually seen news reports of a "hazardous chemical spill" from an over the road tanker truck that turned out to be saltwater. (Caught the "newsflash" watching the news when the spill happened locally.) Broadening the chemical weapons definition so that it extends to anything is not going to help...unless you want nations to back away from that protocol too.

As for the toxicity of phosphorous, whoop-tee-doo. It is not a primary effect of the rounds, it is secondary...very secondary. Slow poisoning is not the effect the round is being used for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't think it matters what government is currently in the white house, [...] tactics and politics are two different things

---

Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.

The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

---

You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.

The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

---

If you put it that way I have to agree (but I would like to have the use of these weapons in urban area's confirmed). And congrats with your 1000th post in hell ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.

---

You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.

Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.

---

Makes sense to me. :bow:

And congrats on 1,000!~:cheers:

~:cheers: :barrel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.

---

What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)

I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh there is much I could tell you about the effects of WP and fuel air explosives - but you would probably end up calling me a war criminal - so why should I bother?

---

You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views. Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.

If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.

It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.

Btw, are there any UN observers in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views.

---

LOL - you don't want your perspective changed the terms you use in this thread already show that.

Quote:

---

Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.

---

Nope you have already stated that you believe about WP - I shot WP at enemy troops positions to mark them for aircraft and to burn an ammo dump during Desert Storm. Not hard to image what you would say about it given the nature of your comments in this thread.

Quote:

---

If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.

---

Try again - your attempting a strawman arguement here - I said the comment was I wonder if you even read this before you posted it. It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.

Now care to speak about weapons effects and how it looks on the ground in an honest way - I will explain to you why the comments from the health institute are full of crap (see below) - however one first must understand how the different munitions work - the health ministry does not know - his comments are of a nature of guess work - however it seems you want to believe them lock stock and barrell.

Quote:

---

It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.

---

Again care to learn how fuel air explosives work and how WP works?

If there is no air available to breath because it is being used to make the muntions work as they are intended to do, What happens to the people and animals within the area effected by the munition?

Comments about the Military hiding the fact that the weapons were used and that they might not have been used correctly are approiate in my opinion, making claims of chemical and nuclear weapons well is crap if one understands what is in the inventory of munitions and how those weapons work.

Chemical or nuclear weapons being used is extremely doubtful - the chemical weapon use would have had harmful effects on the soldiers walking through the environement after their use. Do you see anyone in Bio suits handling the causalites? Are the soldiers in the video walking around in MOPP gear?

Care to guess how long mustard gas can stay on the ground in the desert? I will give you a clue - I used to train in the desert at Dugway Utah when I was in the Utah National Guard and a few times during my active duty - guess on average how many soldiers are treated for mustard gas burns in their lungs (very minor) every training cycle - especially those that get lost and wonder into the wrong area - which is clearly marked. It would remain even longer in the shadows and cranies of a city block.

Nerve agents leave a tell on how the person dies - its an obvious death - and not something a doctor would have to guess at once he began to investigate the cause of death. Again same for mustard gas - it has a tell on how people or animals die from being exposed. Not something that would confuse a doctor.

Care to guess how the nuclear weapons work which is also being accused of being used? A simple test would confirm or deny such an allegation - however its a research your going to have to do - I don't feel like educating you any farther on the effects of weapons since its obvious that you have already reached a preconcieved notion about the events based upon speclutation, propaganda and incorrect data.

But I won't go into the nuclear weapon data as of yet because it is obvious that nukes were not used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)

I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?

---

Aren't some soldiers using shotguns? Don't the special forces guys use hollow point rounds? Where are the press stories about this?

While we are at it, what are the insurgents doing using mosques for cover and supply? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:

Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. (Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins and is known for its long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.)
Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.

---

Don't know if it will solve your arguing about either phosphorus is a chimical weapon or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
...

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

---

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP.

---

He says he is not excluding any of them.

Quote:

---

Sounds pretty credible to me.

---

More credible than your government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He says he is not excluding any of them.

---

No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.

Read the excerpt:

Quote:

---

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:

---

In a similar story the same guy said the US has harnessed the power of the Bogyman, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and is using it on the innocent people.~;)

Oh yah, sarcasm on.~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He says he is not excluding any of them.More credible than your government.

---

No, not more credible. Despite Dubya's credibility problems, none of the stuff you are spouting adds up. You are trying to manufacture a chemical arms story out of traditional weapons. And yes, incindiaries are traditional, going back to greek fire and the like.

Considering how many casualties we took, an argument that we didn't do enough to protect civilians is bogus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.

---

The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'