US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

I do not believe that the military classifies WP as a chemical weapon. It is an incendiery weapon. WP is a "chemical" weapon only in the sense that high explosives would be (everything is made of chemicals.)

In military parlance, chemical weapons refer to nerve, blister or irritant chemicals like VX or tear gas.

That being said, it's still a terrible weapon and is inhumane to use against personnel. The primary intention may have been to burn down buildings.

 

JohnB is correct. WP is not a chemical weapon at all. It is an incendiary weapon, readily used and commenly known about. Incendiary weapons are completely permissible and accepted in most traditional forms of combat.

 

Napalm is also not classified as a "chemical" weapon.

This report is specious, at best. Since a woman named Sgrena is involved in these "revelations", they may well be outright lies.

Regardless, all international agreements concerning WP and napalm say that they are not 'chemical" weapons but can legitimately be deployed against military targets. I don't even believe the U.S. is a signer of all the agreements.

 

Is "Sgrena" an internationally known liar?
Or are women names Sgrena prone to telling untruths?

I am not defending the story one way or the other. It may be bogus.

But to reject reporting because of someone's name?

 

I think it's sufficient to reject it simply because it's on a site called "informationclearinghouse.info".

 

Don't you recognize the name , John?

It's the same Italian journalist who was taken hostage by insurgents. When she was ransomed by the Italians, they did not tell American military authorities where and when she was being freed. Her bodyguard ended up dead at an Army checkpoint when they failed to heed warnings to stop.

She has long been anti-American to the core.

 

Ah - thanks for the clarification.

 

It was reported in BBC news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm
Other sources from Italy also carry a story on this also as well as some U.S. Based News sources.
You can view a video on the Scoops site as well.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00143.htm

 

This will be another one of those anti-American military stories that the media will endlessly exploit.

Never mind that WP and napalm are definitely not "chemical" weapons and are entirely legal to use against military targets.

 

I would suspect it is chemical enough to those
who suffer from its devestating effects, eventhough it is easy to say it is not a chemical
because someone says it is not and it is permissable does not make it right ,it is just another black eye and I am appalled that christians promote the use of napalm...little
children and newborns die from it.

The Bush culture has hurt this great country but
hopefully after tonights ethics refresher things
might get better....right!

bbc credible story?

snippet

Destroyed evidence'

The documentary begins with formerly classified footage of the Americans using napalm bombs during the Vietnam war.

It then shows a series of photographs from Falluja of corpses with the flesh burnt off but clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.

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.

 

Don't you recognize the name , John?

It's the same Italian journalist who was taken hostage by insurgents. When she was ransomed by the Italians, they did not tell American military authorities where and when she was being freed. Her bodyguard ended up dead at an Army checkpoint when they failed to heed warnings to stop.

She has long been anti-American to the core. </font>[/QUOTE]It is too bad they didn't get her as well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had "lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq". (06-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American "free press" is yoked to the center of power in Washington."------------------------------------------------------

Yada, Yada, Yada. Napalm is a common and useful weapon. In wwII we used flam trowers, in Veitnam we dropped it from planes. I hope they are making good use of both Napalm and WP Or Willie Pete, as it was known in the Army. Why would we want to prevent our military from using these tried and true weapons, or do you want to tie their hands and fight a pc war like veitnam. I guess we learned our lessons.

 

Wait a minute here....am I the only one who remembers that civilians were evacuated before the military assault on Fallujah?

 

EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!!
Gabriele Zamaprini

snippet:
November 8, 2005

Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC
By Gabriele Zamparini

On Tuesday morning, November 8, 2005, the BBC NEWS website published an article with the title US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq

This was after RAI NEWS 24 documentary "Fallujah. La strage nascosta" (Fallujah. The Concealed Massacre) depicting the use of white phosphorous on civilians in Falluja last year was broadcast the same morning from the Italian TV channel.

The film however had been available on the internet since the day before (November 7, 2005) when many alerts and comments appeared on websites and blogs around the world.


Mr Zamparini,

A little research has indicated that White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, nor is the US a signatory to conventions restricting its use.

We are doing our best with a complicated report. Our story is not opinionated, it is both accurate and balanced. The Rai report may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading.

I will not be responding to every email commenting on a minute detail of our coverage.

Yours faithfully,

Tarik Kafala
In the meanwhile two things happened:

1) The BBC NEWS website article changed (again!). In this new version (the last?), the reader now can find these new paragraphs:
Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though such bombs are considered incendiary devices.

The US military admits using the weapon in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.

But US military officials deny using it in built-up areas. Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting white phosphorus devices.
2) A box with details of white phosphorus has been added to the article:
- Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
- Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
- Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
- Protocol III not signed by US
A little research, and here it’s my reply to Mr Tarik Kafala:
Dear Mr Tarik Kafala,

In your last email you write that "White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon". I believe it’s for this reason the article in the BBC NEWS website changed again. The article now starts with: "Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices." And again for this reason I believe the article’s title changed from US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq to US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq

The statement "White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon" is in fact incorrect.

If you had the time to follow this link and click the "Play" under the photo on the right at the bottom of the page, you would learn directly from the voice of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) that "any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... [is] considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior"

Considering what I have written above, the accusation you made in your email against the RAI report, namely "The Rai report may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading" not only did happen to be wrong but it’s indeed the BBS NEWS website to be wrong and – using your words – "factually inaccurate and misleading" .

I hope this may clarify the picture and I want to hope the BBC will take the due steps to correct its reporting.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamaprini

Link

Common sense and the bottom line says this weapon
is chemical in nature...no matter how you try to
spin it...ask someone who has suffered from its
use is the best test ..if they are still alive.

 

WP is not chemical weapon. I was in the Army, we were provided with white phosporus hand grenads. It can be used as an antipersonel weapon very readily. I would use it in a hearbeat if I were fighting it out in Iraq.

I don't see much differnce in filling my enemy full of m-60 rounds and throwing a white phosperous grende at him. In fact I would rather throw a WP grenade at him than rely on a convetional grenade. It is alot easier to keep fighting with a pieace of shrapnel in you than a piece of WP.

Arm chair soldiers, gotta love em!

 

When we talk about chemical munitions we have always been talking about chemicals that are misted onto the battle field to poison soldiers. We have never considered anything like WP to be a chemical munition. I took NBC (neuclear, biological, and chemical) training in the Army, and WP was not part of the training. But I guess you antiamerican armchair soldiers can't have a point if we wont allow you to make up your own definitions.

 

If it is NOT so chemical Bunyon perhaps you can
conduct your own test...of course it is chemical
in nature...wake up and use common sense.

The issue is not anti-american the issue is this
a chemical that was used and innocents suffered
in America we do our best to protect innocents
now women and children in Iraq created in Gods
image do they deserve protection as well.

Here it is again Bunyon :

A box with details of white phosphorus has been added to the article:
- Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
- Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh

How would you like if this was used on your family and friends...again use common sense.

As for armchair people the information coming
out is from actual soldiers who were their so
please spare me.

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.