Article: What Is the US Trying to Hide in Fallujah?

Lemming

Posted from here

---

Summary:

Anonymous Iraqi says “In the center of the Julan Quarter they are removing entire homes which have been bombed, meanwhile most of the homes that were bombed are left as they were. Why are they doing this?” Suspicious? Hmmm. With the military maintaining strict control over who enters Fallujah, the truth of what weapons were used remains difficult to find. Meanwhile, people who lived in different districts of Fallujah continue to tell the same stories.

---

By Dahr Jamail
Republished from AntiWar.com

'Coalition' forces are removing entire homes which have been bombed, meanwhile most homes that were bombed are left as they were. Suspicious?

“The soldiers are doing strange things in Fallujah,” said one of my contacts in Fallujah who just returned. He was in his city checking on his home and just returned to Baghdad this evening.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, he continued, “In the center of the Julan Quarter they are removing entire homes which have been bombed, meanwhile most of the homes that were bombed are left as they were. Why are they doing this?”

According to him, this was also done in the Nazal, Mualmeen, Jubail, and Shuhada’a districts, and the military began to do this after Eid, which was after Nov. 20.

He told me he has watched the military use bulldozers to push the soil into piles and load it onto trucks to carry away. This was done in the Julan and Jimouriya quarters of the city, which is of course where the heaviest fighting occurred during the siege, as this was where resistance was the fiercest.

“At least two kilometers [1.2 mi.] of soil were removed,” he explained. “Exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons.”

He explained that in certain areas where the military used “special munitions,” 200 square meters [2,150 sq. ft.] of soil was being removed from each blast site.

In addition, many of his friends have told him that the military brought in water-tanker trucks to power blast the streets, although he hadn’t seen this himself.

“They went around to every house and have shot the water tanks,” he continued. “As if they are trying to hide the evidence of chemical weapons in the water, but they only did this in some areas, such as Julan and in the souk [market] there as well.”

He first saw this having been done after Dec. 20.

Again, this is reflective of stories I’ve been told by several refugees from Fallujah.

Just last December, a 35-year-old merchant from Fallujah, Abu Hammad, told me what he’d experienced when he was still in the city during the siege.

“The American warplanes came continuously through the night and bombed everywhere in Fallujah! It did not stop even for a moment! If the American forces did not find a target to bomb, they used sound bombs just to terrorize the people and children. The city stayed in fear; I cannot give a picture of how panicked everyone was.”

“In the mornings I found Fallujah empty, as if nobody lives in it,” he’d said. “Even poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah – they used everything – tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground. Nothing is left.”

In Amiriyat al-Fallujah, a small city just outside Fallujah where many doctors from Fallujah have been practicing since they were unable to do so at Fallujah General Hospital, similar stories are being told.

Last month, one refugee who had just arrived at the hospital in the small city explained that he’d watched the military bring in water-tanker trucks to power-blast some of the streets in Fallujah.

“Why are they doing this?” asked Ahmed (name changed for his protection). “To beautify Fallujah? No! They are covering their tracks from the horrible weapons they used in my city.”

Also last November, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area, Abu Sabah told me, “They [U.S. military] used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke behind them.”

He explained that pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burned people’s skin even when water was dumped on their bodies, which is the effect of phosphorous weapons, as well as napalm. “People suffered so much from these, both civilians and fighters alike,” he said.

My friend Suthir [name changed to protect identity] was a member of one of the Iraqi Red Crescent relief convoys that was allowed into Fallujah at the end of November.

“I’m sure the Americans committed bad things there, but who can discover and say this?” she said when speaking of what she saw of the devastated city. “They didn’t allow us to go to the Julan area or any of the others where there was heavy fighting, and I’m sure that is where the horrible things took place.”

“The Americans didn’t let us in the places where everyone said there was napalm used,” she added. “Julan and those places where the heaviest fighting was, nobody is allowed to go there.”

On Nov. 30, the U.S. military prevented an aid convoy from reaching Fallujah. This aid convoy was sent by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, but was told by soldiers at a checkpoint to return in “eight or nine days,” reported AP.

Dr. Ibrahim al-Kubaisi, who was with the relief team, told reporters at that time, “There is a terrible crime going in Fallujah, and they do not want anybody to know.”

With the military maintaining strict control over who enters Fallujah, the truth of what weapons were used remains difficult to find.

Meanwhile, people who lived in different districts of Fallujah continue to tell the same stories.

I do have to admit that the behaviour does seem very sinister. Combined with the amount of similar stories regarding the effects of weapons it makes you wonder what new weapons/munitions were used in Fallujah. Radioactive/DU? Chemical? Given that the Bush administration has made no secrets about developing "battlefield nukes" this worries me greatly.

Nuttzz

DU weapons were designed for use against tanks rather than people, Having seen the TV reports of the fighting in the city I didnt see any US soliders wearing any sort of NBC gear which they would need to operate in a chemical/nuke envirnoment. Considering that they do control who gest into and comes out of the city there is no way to prove or this prove this. Its just one of a long list of theories.

Captain Trips

Nuttzz wrote:

Having seen the TV reports of the fighting in the city I didnt see any US soliders wearing any sort of NBC gear which they would need to operate in a chemical/nuke envirnoment.

Ironically, they also lack the appropriate helmet and body armour to operate in a conventional bullet environment.

Makes you think, huh?

toiletduck

Captain Trips wrote:

Ironically, they also lack the appropriate helmet and body armour to operate in a conventional bullet environment.

Makes you think, huh?

not really. I havent heard anything about troops being short of helmets, the main problem seems to be lack of armour for vehicles.

Nuttzz

Any reports I saw they all had helmets on. Body armour isnt much use against a bullet, its still fairly warm over there (16-20 Celsius) so running around a city in full body armour will dehydrate you fairly quickly not to mention slow you down, perhaps they traded off limited protection for mobility?

bbbaldy

America is a dirty fighter.
It is a nation that states that neither the geneva convention or the international court of human rights applies to them.
Nothing and I mean Nothing would suprise me regarding their methods of warfare.
I think its about time people woke up and smelt the coffee, this is modern day imperialism with all the nasty bits that go with it.
Before I am accused of being 'anti american', I am not. I have an interest in world politics and world history. There are a lot of bad nations out there, as there allways has been, but people will not accept that america is one of them.

PcP

I'm sure quite a few people do accept it but are happy to overlook it because they are not personally affected by it.

As for Fallujah, does it matter if they levelled it with small(er) battlefield nukes and quickly cleaned up so no-one could tell, or just levelled it with conventional weapons? The end result would appear to be the same.

OfflerCrocGod

Load of toss. Why use any sort of "special weapons" when the Americans have perfectly good conventional weapons.

Hobbes

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Load of toss. Why use any sort of "special weapons" when the Americans have perfectly good conventional weapons.

Weapons sales.

Whats the point of trying to sell a weapon if you can't demonstrate it.

bonkey

I would guess the most likely munitions used were so-called "cluster bombs", and the US was being pro-active in removing all possibility of leaving some behind where they selectively used them for two reasons -

1) They discovered (only while in Afghanistan, I think) that they can cause problems for their own troops, which would be exacerbated in an urban region

and

2) The bad press - both for using them in an urban area, and for the resultant civilian deaths - were any undetonated munitions left behind would be devestating, both in Iraq, in the US, and internationally.

Removing large swathes of a shallow depth of earth and some ruined buildings, and power-hosing down areas where munitions would be more easily dislodged would seem to be a very logical way of achieving this.

This is, of course, pure speculation.....but if these actions did take place, they aren't necessarily as sinister as they may seem.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Plausible, using cluster bombs in a city with civilians about is not any less sinister though

bonkey

It wasn't a city with civilians when they used them, though, was it?

jc

Moriarty

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, jc. I'm heartend to see the usual suspects are saying the US nuked (or worse!</shrieking indignation>) falluja already. A+ for effort lads.

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

It wasn't a city with civilians when they used them, though, was it?
jc

Er, yes it was - there were civilians trapped in the city who couldn't get out.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

It wasn't a city with civilians when they used them, though, was it?

jc

Yes it was or do you believe all those women and children killed were trying to fire their RPG at the Americans

true

bbbaldy wrote:

America is a dirty fighter.
It is a nation that states that neither the geneva convention or the international court of human rights applies to them.
Nothing and I mean Nothing would suprise me regarding their methods of warfare.
I think its about time people woke up and smelt the coffee, this is modern day imperialism with all the nasty bits that go with it.
Before I am accused of being 'anti american', I am not. I have an interest in world politics and world history. There are a lot of bad nations out there, as there allways has been, but people will not accept that america is one of them.

Dirty fighter / geneva convention ? In WW2, the germans very much more wanted to surrender to the British and Americans than to the Russians. The British and Americans observed the geneva convention, and then helped with the Berlin airlift, the Marshall plan etc.
Closer to home, look at all the help America has given to Ireland over the years.
America is not perfect, but be grateful the worlds main superpower is as good as it is. Most other countries in the world are not as democratic , economically successful or as free. Would you prefer Russia ? Would you prefer to live in any of the Arab countries, which are not democracies ?
It is easy to criticise America from here. If it were not for America, we would be speaking German or Russian.

Magnolia_Fan

If Sadam didn't have any WMD's why didn't he just let the weapon inspectors do what they wanted to do? (under Clinton) and then again when Blixx was there.....he ran and hid in a hole like a coward and let his people get inceinerated by bombs. Does anybody actually know exactly what legislation was on the 18 U.N resolutions that Sadam disobeyed I can only remember one: that the weapons couldn't fire over a certain distance.its like that feckin Kyoto agreement all over again how come the public can't see what it says!?

As for Fallujah, I remember not so long ago they showed video from Fallujah on RTE, one in which it showed a cross fire between U.S Troops and insurgents and they killed him and then went into a house and sat down and smoked some cigars...nicely depicted by RTE...

Magnolia_Fan

If Sadam didn't have any WMD's why didn't he just let the weapon inspectors do what they wanted to do? (under Clinton) and then again when Blixx was there.....he ran and hid in a hole like a coward and let his people get inceinerated by bombs. Does anybody actually know exactly what legislation was on the 18 U.N resolutions that Sadam disobeyed I can only remember one: that the weapons couldn't fire over a certain distance.its like that feckin Kyoto agreement all over again how come the public can't see what it says!?

As for Fallujah, I remember not so long ago they showed video from Fallujah on RTE, one in which it showed a cross fire between U.S Troops and insurgents and they killed him and then went into a house and sat down and smoked some cigars...nicely depicted by RTE...or there new best buds CBS. Election cover from CBS, it seems alot of there footage now is CBS...me wonders if their working together. Watch RTE slide downthe tubes with the BBC

Hobbes

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

If Sadam didn't have any WMD's why didn't he just let the weapon inspectors do what they wanted to do? (under Clinton) and then again when Blixx was there

He did when Blix was there. As for Clintons time the reason the inspectors were thrown out prior to Clinton was because the inspectors were not in fact inspectors but were actually UK/US spies who were marking targets to hit.

Lemming

Hobbes wrote:

He did when Blix was there. As for Clintons time the reason the inspectors were thrown out prior to Clinton was because the inspectors were not in fact inspectors but were actually UK/US spies who were marking targets to hit.

I believe (at least) one of them was identified as being a member of the CIA

pickarooney

If it were not for America, we would be speaking German or Russian.

What does this quote mean, and why do people always use it when talking about WWII, and then never explain what they mean by it?
Is there something intrinsically bad about speaking German or Russian or is it just a weird way of saying that Ireland would have been a German/Russian colony were it not for the US? If so, why is it not an American colony now? I don't get the logic, if indeed that's the inference.

toiletduck

Hobbes wrote:

He did when Blix was there. As for Clintons time the reason the inspectors were thrown out prior to Clinton was because the inspectors were not in fact inspectors but were actually UK/US spies who were marking targets to hit.

At least one was a spy, so the targets he would have been marking would have been WMD sites (or at least suspected ones seeing as how they were denied access to a lot of places)

Gurgle

true wrote:

If it were not for America, we would be speaking German or Russian.

:rolleyes:
Said the Irishman in english.

bbbaldy

Quote, (True) 'Dirty fighter / geneva convention ?'

The United States has refused to recognize the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to any of the Afghan war or al-Qaeda detainees held at Guantánamo or elsewhere, including captured members of the Taliban armed forces, although it has insisted that it treats them humanely. It refused to permit competent tribunals to determine whether any of the detained combatants were entitled to prisoner of war status. It has also refused to abide by principles of international human rights law with regard to these detainees, asserting, in effect, that no legal regime applies to them and that in the war against terrorism, the United States may hold such combatants for as long as it chooses. The Guantánamo detainees remain without a legal forum in which they can challenge their detention; a federal judge ruled on July 30, 2002 that U.S. federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims brought by aliens held by the United States outside U.S. sovereign territory. In addition, the United States denied the request made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to provide for a lawful tribunal or court to determine the status of these detainees. The United States did not even respond to letters from the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention seeking information on the treatment and legal status of the Guantánamo detainees.

Scource:Human rights watch.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

He did when Blix was there. As for Clintons time the reason the inspectors were thrown out prior to Clinton was because the inspectors were not in fact inspectors but were actually UK/US spies who were marking targets to hit.

And if you remember they weren't thrown out...they left just ahead of a massive US bombing spree.
As for Fallujah it might be "just" cluster bombs or maybe they are testing these new fangledy "battlefield nukes".
Then again I'm not sure that these even exist yet as the last I heard (IIRC) is that Congress voted down funding for Bush's toys.
AS Bonkey said...pure speculation at this point...but well deserving a full investigation....one amongst many.

sovtek

pickarooney wrote:

What does this quote mean, and why do people always use it when talking about WWII, and then never explain what they mean by it?

In essence it means that WW2 proves that America and it's government/military are always the good guys and anyone that doesn't go along with whatever said government/military wants to do is ungrateful (and therefore expendable) no matter how long ago that supposed altruistic mission was or how despicable the actions of said government happens to be at any given moment along that timeline starting from Dec 7 1941 to some undetermined time in the future...blah blah...run on sentence.....
IMHO (besides being off the topic) it's pointless to even argue with this line of thinking...no matter how tempting it might be.