US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

billy the squid

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

The results of this chemical being used on civilians in Iraq is quite gruesome. I figured it best not to link to the documentary itself.

So after accusing Saddam hussein of having chemical weapons, the only way they can think of finding out is to use .... chemical weapons.

Such weapons being used on civilians is banned by the UN. I would love to hear what the apologists have to say about this revalation.

Im sure the White House Iraq Group must have forgotten to include this when they were selling the war to the American people.

Laguna

It's disgusting. What sickens me the most about the American government is they claim to be Christian. Does this seem like a Christian approach to humanity. Yet more hypocrisy.

bonkey

Interesting link.

I seem to recall Hobbes or someone posting about the hosing down that cleanup crews were doing at the time of the Fallujah "liberation", and there was speculation that some seekrit weapon had been used, which was followed by me (or someone else) suggesting that we didn't need some secret weapon when the actions would be consistent with the use of phosphorous or the like.

jc

Hobbes

Wasn't me, although I do recall there was a news story at the time they basically shut down the city from any reporter being allowed in (with the threat of being shot).

Zulu

God bless America.

HelterSkelter

And the US & Brits wonder why they have suicide bombers attacking them. If someone attacked my city like that I would do absolutly ANYTHING within my power to get them back.

county

i`ve never heard of an iraqie suicide bomber,please enlighten me

HelterSkelter

county wrote:

i`ve never heard of an iraqie suicide bomber,please enlighten me

So what nationality do you think the suicide bombers are who are attacking the US & Brit troops everyday? From the article:

"The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday."

I presume your smart arse comment is refering to the London tube bombings and the like. It's because the US & Brit army are killing innocent Iraqi Muslims that other Muslims (not necessarly Iraqi) are attacking them with suicide bombs.

Rev Hellfire

I suspect he's refering to the fact that there are numerous foreign fighters present in iraq, and that it is they who may be responsible for the suicide attacks.
I think he's also asking for evidence to backup the claim that it is iraqis who are carrying out these particular type of attacks.

A Dub in Glasgo

War crimes and terrorism spring to mind but the US are the defenders of Democracy therefore anyone who accuses them of these things is spouting tin foil hat stuff... apparantly

Nuttzz

WP isnt a new weapon, nor is its use banned by any treaty.

WP is a horrific weapon, a link to the documentry might be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

HelterSkelter

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suspect he's refering to the fact that there are numerous foreign fighters present in iraq, and that it is they who may be responsible for the suicide attacks.
I think he's also asking for evidence to backup the claim that it is iraqis who are carrying out these particular type of attacks.

Their nationality of the suicide bombers is a red herring. The fact is the butchering of innocent Iraqis like this by US and Brits is contributing to the suicide attacks both in Iraq and in their home countries.

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

HelterSkelter

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

I presume the US army kept everyone out of Fallujah until they had cleaned up.

I notice this story is being ignored by most of the media including RTÉ, Sky News, Fox News, CBS News, etc. BBC are the only site I found reporting it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm)

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

I presume the US army kept everyone out of Fallujah until they had cleaned up.

I notice this story is being ignored by most of the media including RTÉ, Sky News, Fox News, CBS News, etc. BBC are the only site I found reporting it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm)

I work for a company that has developed a nifty search engine that monitors UK and Irish media,Gov depts etc and I ran a search to see how many websites of news agencies are running with the story.
So far only the BBC,UK Indepedent, Indymedia,Belfast Telegraph and Eircom.net(from Irish Times) are putting up stories.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=668578
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/6679454?view=Eircomnet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72871

Although the BBC did suspiciously change the title(good work on that here http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog)

Considering there are 100's of news sites montitored by our search engine it is worrying. I am particularily disappointed about RTEs lack of coverage.

billy the squid

Nuttzz wrote:

WP isnt a new weapon, nor is its use banned by any treaty.

WP is a horrific weapon, a link to the documentry might be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

I didnt link to the documentary because it is quite gruesome. If a moderator wants to review it, I can sent them the link and let them decide whether or not posting it up here is appropriate.

Moriarty

WP is as close to a chemical weapon as conventional explosives are to a nuclear weapon.

Weh weh weh, lets throw around alligations we know aren't true but will grab headlines anyway.. once anyone actually draws attention to the fact the headlines are blatant lies, we can move on to the next story of half truths, and so on and so forth. Quality journalism.

A Dub in Glasgo

When I done the Leaving Cert, Phosphorous was a chemical. A weaponised form of phosphorous is a chemical weapon. WP will cause quite painful chemical burn injuries which is deeply embedded in the flesh ensuring a high mortality rate.

Moriarty

What do you think explosives are? Non-Chemicals?

Are explosives grown on explosive trees and a natural product of mother earth?

A Dub in Glasgo

Of course not

What do you understand the term 'chemical weapon' to mean and explain how the use of a weaponised form of White Phosphorous cannot be classed as a chemical weapon

Moriarty

The wikipedia defintion seems fairly consistent with CWC defintions, so I'll quote it here.

Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Note: toxic.

The CWC explicitly defines the substances under its purview as "toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or precursors of other listed substances."

WP is an incendiary weapon, as the BBC article correctly defines it.

breandan

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

There is actaully very few 'foreign' ie 'western' journalists operating outside the green zone in Baghdad. Most reports from AP, AFP and the like are from Iraqi reporters on the ground and the Shi'ite and Kurde dominated military in Iraq, who are hardly likely to own up to such activities as it was the Shi'ite/Kurd alliance that have allowed the Americans to go into cities and towns in Al Anbar Province mob handed.
Indeed the Iraqi military as in the Shi'ite/Kurd alliance have actually contributed troops to some of these operations.
Not to mention the lunatic Jihadis who are as likely to lob off journos heads as give them news scoops.
So basically theres a whole lot of people with guns who dont want the world knowing whats going on in deepest darkest Al Anbar and there are very few 'western journalists' in Iraq to comment on these activities even if they did have the access to these areas!

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

The wikipedia defintion seems fairly consistent with CWC defintions, so I'll quote it here.


Note: toxic.

The CWC explicitly defines the substances under its purview as "toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or precursors of other listed substances."

WP is an incendiary weapon, as the BBC article correctly defines it.

ah right so now it's up to the wikipedia to decide when weapons that are used constitute chemical warfare.

This kind of arguement is completely semantical.

The effect that the chemical has on human beings is very obvious. This is exactly how the US used Agent Orange in Vietnam, and the consequences of that can be seen even today. I suppose luckily for the US White phosphorous doesn't seem to have similar teratogenic effects, rather it just burns people alive the moment it hits their skin. Which doesn't leave the kind of long term evidence as Agent Orange.

I bet if saddam had used it people like you would be lining the streets with megaphones claiming it as proof of Iraqi WMD.

It is a chemical, that was used as a weapon, denial by the US administration not withstanding. Off course they are going to deny it however by this stage it's pretty clear that this US administration has 0 credibility.

But the fact that the US used chemical weapons comes as no surprise. It is consistant with their military doctrine past and present.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

ah right so now it's up to the wikipedia to decide when weapons that are used constitute chemical warfare.

This kind of arguement is completely semantical.

Did you read the quote you were responding to?

It pointed out that wiki was close to the CWC, and mentioned both what wike and the Chemical Weapons Convention declared it to be.

So the "completely semantical" argument is providing two definitions which agree with each other, and where one of which is about as definitive a declaration as you could wish for?

The effect that the chemical has on human beings is very obvious.

No, its not. THe effect that the combustion of the chemical has on human beings is very obvious. Thus, it is incendiary.

This is exactly how the US used Agent Orange in Vietnam,

Huh? The US ignited Agent Orange and burned people to death with it? Thats a first to me. You have sources, I assume?

rather it just burns people alive the moment it hits their skin.
Which doesn't leave the kind of long term evidence as Agent Orange.

You don't think burn marks of a very specific nature are long-term evidence?

It is a chemical, that was used as a weapon,

Ah right. I see,. The CWC and Wiki definitions, although virtually identical are unacceptable because one of them is from wiki. The "Here's my own off-the-cuff definition" from your good self, however, should be more than enough of a definition for anyone?

But the fact that the US used chemical weapons comes as no surprise.

Allegedly used chemical weapons, or did the burden of proof disappear when you threw out the CWC definition as well?

jc

Hagar

Deleted User wrote:

Forgive my cynicism, but how come it's taken so long to come out? Would have thought foreign journos would have nearly been bussed to the sites of the bodies by the Iraqis if it cast the Yanks in a bad light.

The victor writes the history books.

dahamsta

Deleted User wrote:

I work for a company that has developed a nifty search engine that monitors UK and Irish media,Gov depts etc and I ran a search to see how many websites of news agencies are running with the story.
So far only the BBC,UK Indepedent, Indymedia,Belfast Telegraph and Eircom.net(from Irish Times) are putting up stories.

It's in a few more than that, however yes, it is quite limited for such an important story.

biko

It seems, after a quick scan, only Boston Globe in the US ran the story (don't know about paper edition).
Boston is a Kerry stronghold so that's evident. Wonder if it made it to headlines in " Jesusland"

dahamsta

biko wrote:

It seems, after a quick scan, only Boston Globe in the US ran the story (don't know about paper edition).
Boston is a Kerry stronghold so that's evident. Wonder if it made it to headlines in " Jesusland"

I'm pretty sure the Christian Science Monitor is US-based, and pretty popular; although of course it's published by a church, and past experience suggests it's somewhat left-wing in it's editorial policy (and thus generally read by left-wingers). As an aside, I'm often very surprised by it's quality, given it's background.

Plus there are a few other smaller US-based publications (the ones with a state acronym after their name rather than a country). The story was picked up by Reuters and UPI too, so we may see it picked up from there in the next day or two. Or not.

Spacedog

You guys can bicker about the definition of a chemical weapon all you like. If anyone here can say that WP use isn't a big deal, is being blown out of proportion, or isn't that toxic. You'll have no bother taking a face full of the stuff and letting us know how safe it is.

I'm tempted to post the image from this article straight to the board...

(Warning - horrific imagery)
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

Moriarty

It can be and is used as a weapon among other things. No one's disputing that. No one is disputing it's damaging/lethal effects either. Its use is not outlawed, and it is not a chemical weapon. Only people with an axe to grind would claim it is.

HelterSkelter

Spacedog wrote:

You guys can bicker about the definition of a chemical weapon all you like. If anyone here can say that WP use isn't a big deal, is being blown out of proportion, or isn't that toxic. You'll have no bother taking a face full of the stuff and letting us know how safe it is.

I'm tempted to post the image from this article straight to the board...

(Warning - horrific imagery)
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10017

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It doesn't matter a fúck if it's chemical or not, outlawed or not, the fact is it causes horrific injuries resulting in death and accoding to this documentary the US used it on citizens in Fallujah.

Moriarty

Bullets don't cause horrific injuries? Tank shells don't cause horrific injuries? Everything in a modern day armies arsenal doesn't cause horrific injuries?

dahamsta

Perhaps we could put the anal-retentive semantics aside and agree that since it is /acting/ as a chemical weapon, intentionally or not, it /should/ be banned?

Moriarty

How exactly is it "acting as a chemical weapon"?

Oh and hey, while we're not being anally retentive lets forget about those non-wmds in Iraq. And guantanamo bay. I mean, who cares anymore.. get over it.

Dar

What's the differance between the US killing civilians using an incendiary weapon and Saddam killing them with a chemical one? The self-proclaimed "good guys" have allegedly commited an atrocity on an area containing civilians and you argue semantics.

Moriarty

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Maskhadov

billy the squid wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

The results of this chemical being used on civilians in Iraq is quite gruesome. I figured it best not to link to the documentary itself.

So after accusing Saddam hussein of having chemical weapons, the only way they can think of finding out is to use .... chemical weapons.

Such weapons being used on civilians is banned by the UN. I would love to hear what the apologists have to say about this revalation.

Im sure the White House Iraq Group must have forgotten to include this when they were selling the war to the American people.

Bad buzz:v:

HelterSkelter

Moriarty wrote:

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Moriarty, where exactly do you stand on what happened in Fallujah? Leaving aside the weapons they used, chemical or not, was it right so go in and kill everybody there including innocent civillians?

Hobbes

HelterSkelter wrote:

kill everybody there including innocent civillians?

AFAIR the US military stopped the media from going into the city and told the people in the city who were not fighting to leave. They then made a statement that the only people left in the city were fighters.

Still not good form, but I reckon they will use that as the defense.

breandan

Moriarty wrote:

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Personally I care not if they are classed as 'chemical weapons' or not, the fact is that what the American military did in Fallujah was wrong and many innocent people died because of their actions. On that note I will leave you and whoever else is interested in such things to continue debating the precise defenition of chemical weapons.

vibe666

chemical, incendiary, whatever, still doesn't change the fact that US troops used a weapon that dissolves peoples flesh on a city containing innocent people sleeping (or possibly hiding, but again semantics) in their beds.

killing anyone within 150m of the blast? (taken from the article)

that could indescriminately kill hundreds of people in a single shot. to me, that sounds pretty much like a WMD to me, whether chemical or not. again, i'm sure someone will argue about the definition of WMD's, but something capable of killing so many people and in such a way to me sounds like a WMD.

If Saddam had used them instead of the US, I doubt anyone would have been arguing the toss about what is and isn't classed as a chemical weapon.

whatever you want to call them, and however you want to get around the fact that what they do is an atrocity, the fact remains that by any definition you want, they were used to kill and mutilate people indescriminately on a large scale.


lets see a show of hands for who thinks the US did the right thing by deploying these weapons in Fallujah and burning the flesh off a whole bunch of people in order to kill them slowly and exceedingly painfully?
[align=right]13.16.137.10[/align]

bonkey

vibe666 wrote:

killing anyone within 150m of the blast? (taken from the article)

that could indescriminately kill hundreds of people in a single shot. to me, that sounds pretty much like a WMD to me, whether chemical or not. again, i'm sure someone will argue about the definition of WMD's, but something capable of killing so many people and in such a way to me sounds like a WMD.

The only point I'll make is the repeated use of "sounds like...to me", but the absence of any reason to believe in your understanding of what a WMD is.

If Saddam had used them instead of the US, I doubt anyone would have been arguing the toss about what is and isn't classed as a chemical weapon.

Hate to disappoint you, but I would. I'm a pedant like that.

whatever you want to call them, and however you want to get around the fact that what they do is an atrocity,

What, in war, isn't atrocious?

the fact remains that by any definition you want, they were used to kill and mutilate people indescriminately on a large scale.

Again the lack of the word allegedly.

lets see a show of hands for who thinks the US did the right thing by deploying these weapons in Fallujah and burning the flesh off a whole bunch of people in order to kill them slowly and exceedingly painfully?

If the US used these weapons, and if they used them in areas they did not have firm intelligence were completely devoid of civilians, then I agree their use was totally unacceptable.

If they had firm, but incorrect, evidence that there were only enemy combatants in the area, I would say that the use was regrettable and should trigger a review of when it is acceptable to use such weapons.

And if the allegations turn out to have been manufactured, I expect the people who insist that the US did do this to either not apologise for their false accusations, or to disbelieve the articles that exhonorate the US and to insist that its all a cover-up.

jc

vibe666

yeah, well, allegedly there's potographic evidence, and a whole documentary with statements from people who were there, saying it's true, so you can allegedly think what you want and argue the toss, but I allegedly disagree with you.

Or aren't I entitled to have an opinion on this?

bonkey wrote:

If they had firm, but incorrect, evidence that there were only enemy combatants in the area, I would say that the use was regrettable and should trigger a review of when it is acceptable to use such weapons.

there isn't ANY situation EVER where there use of a weapon that does something like that to people is acceptable.

even if there had been no civilians within 100 miles of fallujah when this happened, there can be no justification for the use of these sorts of weapons given the damage they do, it's just not right by any standards of human decency, even the low respect for human life americans show for their own countrymen, never mind foriegn nationals.

and you still didn't answer my question.
[align=right]13.16.137.10[/align]

HelterSkelter

Gotta agree with you on all counts Vibe666.

bonkey

vibe666 wrote:

yeah, well, allegedly there's potographic evidence, and a whole documentary with statements from people who were there, saying it's true, so you can allegedly think what you want and argue the toss, but I allegedly disagree with you.

Or aren't I entitled to have an opinion on this?

Of course you are.

I was just pointing out that you were presenting allegation as fact, which is no different to presenting opinion as fact. I wanted to be clear that I was not playing the same game of assumption.

there isn't ANY situation EVER where there use of a weapon that does something like that to people is acceptable.

So what bombs are acceptable? MOAB bombs? Cluster bombs? Ordinary high-explosive "blow your limbs off" bombs?

I'm not defending the actions. I'm pointing out that pretty much all of war is unacceptable, but its a reality we have to live with. The best way that I see of living with that reality is to have conventions which nations follow.

If the US broke a convention, then tell me which one. If they didn't, then you'll just have to accept that this is "merely" another horrible aspect of the reality of war.

even if there had been no civilians within 100 miles of fallujah when this happened, there can be no justification for the use of these sorts of weapons given the damage they do, it's just not right by any standards of human decency,

And yet there is no international agreement saynig as much. We've had armchair experts telling us it meets their definition of what a Chemical Weapon or a WMD is, but not one person producing an international convention showing that the use of these weapons has been banned by anyone.

All we have is more cries of how horrible war is, and how wrong the US is to be engaging in acts of war, only instead of decrying war, we're just picking the latest distasteful aspect of it to try and rekindle some good ol' outrage.

I'm not doubting for a second that this was a horrific way to die. I'm simply pointing out that in war there are very few good ways to die, so I don't see what makes this particularly vile unless it was used without due care for non-combatants.

You're free to disagree, but I don't see blowing up a car in a crowded street as an acceptable way of trying to kill some soldier in amongst the other casualties. I don't see the bombing of Iraq on night 1 of the war as an acceptable way of trying to kill Saddam and/or incapacitate his army. There's very little of the killing in this war that I find acceptable, but sooner or later you have to accept that such is the reality of war. Its about killing people.

even the low respect for human life americans show for their own countrymen, never mind foriegn nationals.

Forgive me if I'm not interested in discussing this point. You'll have to find someone else to discuss your dislike of Americans with.

and you still didn't answer my question.

Which one? The one which implied an unconfirmed possibility was a fact?

I did answer it.

I took some of the various possibilities about what actually happened, and offered my response should it turn out that this is what happened.

If you want a single "I'll take this stance no matter what the truth turns out to be" answer, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't see the world in such simplistic terms that I can seperate my response from what it is I'm supposed to be responding to.

jc

HelterSkelter

bonkey wrote:

Of course you are.

I was just pointing out that you were presenting allegation as fact, which is no different to presenting opinion as fact. I wanted to be clear that I was not playing the same game of assumption.


So what bombs are acceptable? MOAB bombs? Cluster bombs? Ordinary high-explosive "blow your limbs off" bombs?

I'm not defending the actions. I'm pointing out that pretty much all of war is unacceptable, but its a reality we have to live with. The best way that I see of living with that reality is to have conventions which nations follow.

If the US broke a convention, then tell me which one. If they didn't, then you'll just have to accept that this is "merely" another horrible aspect of the reality of war.


And yet there is no international agreement saynig as much. We've had armchair experts telling us it meets their definition of what a Chemical Weapon or a WMD is, but not one person producing an international convention showing that the use of these weapons has been banned by anyone.

All we have is more cries of how horrible war is, and how wrong the US is to be engaging in acts of war, only instead of decrying war, we're just picking the latest distasteful aspect of it to try and rekindle some good ol' outrage.

I'm not doubting for a second that this was a horrific way to die. I'm simply pointing out that in war there are very few good ways to die, so I don't see what makes this particularly vile unless it was used without due care for non-combatants.

You're free to disagree, but I don't see blowing up a car in a crowded street as an acceptable way of trying to kill some soldier in amongst the other casualties. I don't see the bombing of Iraq on night 1 of the war as an acceptable way of trying to kill Saddam and/or incapacitate his army. There's very little of the killing in this war that I find acceptable, but sooner or later you have to accept that such is the reality of war. Its about killing people.


Forgive me if I'm not interested in discussing this point. You'll have to find someone else to discuss your dislike of Americans with.


Which one? The one which implied an unconfirmed possibility was a fact?

I did answer it.

I took some of the various possibilities about what actually happened, and offered my response should it turn out that this is what happened.

If you want a single "I'll take this stance no matter what the truth turns out to be" answer, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't see the world in such simplistic terms that I can seperate my response from what it is I'm supposed to be responding to.

jc

I think everyone agrees that war is ugly and it doesn't really matter what weapons are used, it's not a nice way to die. I think that the outrage though is that the whole reason the US and Brits gave for starting this war was that Saddam has chemical weapons and was prepared to used them on the west. The US and Brits are feeding us this propaganda that they are liberating the Iraqis from Saddam yet here we are presented with evidence that the US used what for most people seem to be chemical weapons on the Iraqis. Some are arguing they are not chemical weapons, I don't know if that is true or not, I am no an expert. All I know is I am sick and tired of this propaganda fed to us by the US Army and picked up on by the media and reprinted without any questions asked. We all know they are there for the oil. They don't care about the innocent Iraqis. If they give a flying **** about democracy they would be in some of the poor African countries who have no oil and would be sorting out the evil dictators there.

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

All I know is I am sick and tired of this propaganda fed to us by the US Army and picked up on by the media and reprinted without any questions asked.

I agree wholeheartedly. The point (or one of them anyway) that I was making is that the GoodGuy[tm] alliance aren't the only players capable of propaganda, nor the only ones to gain from its use.

In short, while I'm fed up of GoodGuy[tm] propaganda, and skeptical of all news which could be exactly that, I do not assume that all news crtical of GoodGuy[tm] actions is automatically true, nor do I think that its acceptable for the critics of this propaganda to be any less dilligent about truth and accuracy of their own claims then they are demanding from the GoodGuy[tm] alliance.

If we're willing to call something a Chemical Weapon or a WMD without bothering to check if it actually is one, where do we draw the line of acceptability with propaganda? Its ok for us to not bother with facts because we're only armchairing here, but when it comes to real lives one has to be more responsible? What about when one is reporting back to the armchairs? No lives at stake there, so why not give the armchair-critics the same level of truth and accuracy that they demand of each other?

jc

Gurgle

Whats all the fuss about ?
The war was nothing to do with WMDs[tm] or Terrorism[tm].
The objectives were the Liberation[tm] of the Iraqi people, and the spread of Democracy[tm] through the middle east.

They're all free in Iraq now, aren't they ?
(Including the tens of thousands who are free of the constraints of that irritating mortal coil we're still stuck with)

Does it really make a difference if they were freed with bullets, bombs, nukes, chemical weapons, or more gradually freed through interrogations ?

Padraig Mor

bonkey wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. The point (or one of them anyway) that I was making is that the GoodGuy[tm] alliance aren't the only players capable of propaganda, nor the only ones to gain from its use.

In short, while I'm fed up of GoodGuy[tm] propaganda, and skeptical of all news which could be exactly that, I do not assume that all news crtical of GoodGuy[tm] actions is automatically true, nor do I think that its acceptable for the critics of this propaganda to be any less dilligent about truth and accuracy of their own claims then they are demanding from the GoodGuy[tm] alliance.

If we're willing to call something a Chemical Weapon or a WMD without bothering to check if it actually is one, where do we draw the line of acceptability with propaganda? Its ok for us to not bother with facts because we're only armchairing here, but when it comes to real lives one has to be more responsible? What about when one is reporting back to the armchairs? No lives at stake there, so why not give the armchair-critics the same level of truth and accuracy that they demand of each other?

jc

The US Army themselves have admitted in their own journal using WP in Fallujah as a weapon (not for illumination):

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

The Italian documentary at the heart of the commentary also contains a representative of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons claiming that “any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... is considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior”

Note also the quote in the following article (by an 'embedded' journalist) regarding "a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused".

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Hobbes

From that PDF..

be an effective and versatile munition.
We used it for screening missions at
two breeches and, later in the fight, as a
potent psychological weapon against
the insurgents in trench lines and spider
holes when we could not get effects on
them with HE. We fired "shake and
bake" missions at the insurgents, using
WP to flush them out and HE to take
them out

Doesn't suggest it was used on civillans.

jank

Hobbes wrote:

From that PDF..



Doesn't suggest it was used on civillans.

Well Im sure the US Army are going to admit to cooking civilians alive now :rolleyes:

Instead of defining a Chemical weapon, why not define a Weapon of Mass Destruction?