Film shows US used chemical weapons: Falluja fighting

[P.A.F]

http://www.dawn.com/2005/11/12/int1.htm

THE Italian state television network, RAI, has broadcast a documentary that contains footage and testimony proving that the American military has used chemical weapons in Iraq, including in civilian areas, according to a report on the World Socialist Website.

The film, titled Falluja: the hidden massacre, specifically examined the use of white phosphorous, an incendiary and corrosive chemical agent, during the US assault on Falluja in Nov 2004. Former US soldiers, Iraqi doctors and international journalists were interviewed, and graphic images were shown of Iraqi civilians killed by chemical weapons.

The filmmakers spoke with former army specialist Jeff Englehart, who participated in the Falluja offensive. He was asked if US forces had used chemical weapons. “From the US military, yeah, absolutely,†Englehart replied. “White phosphorus, possibly napalm may or may not have been used, I don’t know. I do know that white phosphorus was used, which is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, a chemical weapon.â€

The former soldier, who is now strongly opposed to the war, described how he saw the corpses of those killed by phosphorous. “Burned. Burned bodies. I mean, it burned children, and it burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately. It’s a cloud that will within, in most cases, 150 metres of impact will disperse, and it will burn every human being or animal.... “The gasses from the warhead of the white phosphorous disperse in a cloud. And when it makes contact with skin, then it’s absolutely irreversible damage—burning of flesh to the bone.... If you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside.

“It basically reacts to skin, oxygen, and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud. But at that point, it’s just impossible to stop.â€

The documentary contained footage shot by a team of Iraqi doctors who entered Falluja after the offensive to assist with the burial of the dead. The film’s narrator described the horrific images: “The bodies of civilian casualties, of women still clutching the masbaha, the Islamic rosary, their bodies showing strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh. There is no sign of bullet wounds. The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact... Some animals are also dead without any apparent injury.â€

The documentary also broadcast a number of still images collected by Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, the director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights in Iraq. The photographs showed men and women burned beyond recognition, their skin either caramelised or completely dissolved. In some cases little more than the victims’ skulls and teeth remain. None of the clothes on the bodies are burnt, indicating that conventional weapons could not have been responsible.

After independent journalists first reported the accusations of Falluja residents that chemical weapons were used against them, the US military issued a formal denial in December 2004.

“US forces have used [phosphorous shells] very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes,†the statement declared. “They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.†The Italian documentary proves this to be a lie—the chemical shells killed both resistance fighters and civilians.

The offensive use of white phosphorous is a clear breach of international law and represents yet another war crime committed by US forces in Iraq. The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Convention Weapons outlaws the use of incendiary and chemical weaponry in civilian areas.

Speaking on the “Democracy Now!†radio programme, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, US military spokesman in Iraq, attempted to deny this. “[The filmmakers are] calling white phosphorous an illegal weapon,†he said. “And that is an error. It’s a perfectly legal weapon to use by all conventions of land warfare.†He also insisted that the dead civilians shown in the documentary could have been killed by conventional explosives. Boylan could not explain, however, how the clothes of the dead could have remained intact.

The military’s use of chemical weapons in Falluja was part of its collective punishment of the city’s entire population. Falluja became one the main centres of the resistance after April 2003, when US forces shot into crowds of protestors on two occasions, killing 16 people. In April 2004, US commanders were humiliated when resistance fighters repulsed a ground offensive that was aimed at regaining the occupation forces’ control over the area.

________________________________________________________________

I hope this isn't true. and its kind of bad that we are blinded from all these acts.

 

[Snayke]

I thought phospherus grenades was standard stuff in the army? :S

 

[JCZS]

I think it's quite clear that Americans, like everyone else, tend to make up the rules as they play the game. War crimes once considered heinous have been trivialized by the White House administration as "quaint"--that is, if said war crimes are committed by Americans. The White House is fond of quoting Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International when it comes to lambasting Syria and Iran, but acts indignant when the same charges are leveled at Guantanamo. The important thing to remember is that we are essentially no better than anyone else.

 

[driftder]

I thought phospherus grenades was standard stuff in the army? :S

not really - it's mostly used by combat engineers, very rare carried by standard infantry. CEs will use it to attack bunkers but now since have thermobarics might use it less cos WP have a wider coverage than standard grenades and once ignited, can't be put out.

strange they call it a chemical weapon. what about CS grenades then? or FAE?

 

[Pursuit Curve]

White Phospherous is used to create smoke screens, and yes, also to start fires and clear buildings, trenches etc.

But if we are going to play games here, then cordite, explosives, Kevlar, film, Jet Fuel to get the film crew to Iraq, the fuel used to propell their vehicle to the scene of the fighting, are all products of the Chemical Industry.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

"Speaking on the “Democracy Now!” radio programme, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, US military spokesman in Iraq, attempted to deny this. “[The filmmakers are] calling white phosphorous an illegal weapon,” he said. “And that is an error. It’s a perfectly legal weapon to use by all conventions of land warfare.” He also insisted that the dead civilians shown in the documentary could have been killed by conventional explosives. Boylan could not explain, however, how the clothes of the dead could have remained intact."

If they were killed by Willy Pete, their clothes would not be intact, they could have been killed by concussion or over pressure from an air burst.

 

[driftder]

"Speaking on the “Democracy Now!†radio programme, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, US military spokesman in Iraq, attempted to deny this. “[The filmmakers are] calling white phosphorous an illegal weapon,†he said. “And that is an error. It’s a perfectly legal weapon to use by all conventions of land warfare.†He also insisted that the dead civilians shown in the documentary could have been killed by conventional explosives. Boylan could not explain, however, how the clothes of the dead could have remained intact."

If they were killed by Willy Pete, their clothes would not be intact, they could have been killed by concussion or over pressure from an air burst.

that's a AFFirmative - no way to say if they killed by WP unless have a look at the KIAs. death by WP have a very distinct signature and my apologies if I have offended with this statement - not trying to appear ghoulish or cavalier but non-soldiers tend to 'dramatise' events.

if its blast effect or concussion, then its worse - opened a new can of worms. means that they ARE using thermobarics of some kind in urban ops without removing or sanitising the area of non-combatants

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Driftder, I know that the HEllfire has a new warhead that is Thermobaric, but lets face it, War is Hell! There i sno nice politically correct way to take an enemy out, and for the unfortunate Civillians caught in the crossfire, well, that is a tragedy, no Soldier willingly takes out Civillians, and when that happens, it breaks a soldiers heart.

There is alot of misinterpretation on the side of the media regarding weapon systems, Napalm takes lives, but it saves lives too, by killing 4 enemy you might save 50 of your own, by breaking the enemies spirit and compelling him to surrender then everyone wins.

 

[driftder]

.....War is Hell! There i sno nice politically correct way to take an enemy out, and for the unfortunate Civillians caught in the crossfire, well, that is a tragedy, no Soldier willingly takes out Civillians, and when that happens, it breaks a soldiers heart.

this might sound preachy but in such cases, it all comes down to rules of engagement - ours strictly call for the evacuation of non-combatants from the combat zone and strict control over weapons fire. As long as there are non-combatants in the combat zone, weapons like directed artillery, air strikes etc will be restricted unless the military situation warrants it eg about to be surrounded. In situations with non-combatants involved, it's eyeball confirmation and contact. Some have called this foolish conduct, endangering lives of the soldiers involved etc but that's the soldier's lot and we do go in with eyes open. It's when we don't and things get confusing and there is a breakdown in conduct ie indiscriminate use of weapons - that's when it turns into War is Hell.

There is alot of misinterpretation on the side of the media regarding weapon systems, Napalm takes lives, but it saves lives too, by killing 4 enemy you might save 50 of your own, by breaking the enemies spirit and compelling him to surrender then everyone wins.

Napalm is a really bad example to use here, especially to those who been drilled in fighting in enclosed confinements or MOUT. It's a very dirty, uncontrollable and indiscrimate weapon - kill by burns, asphyxiation and blast with a very wide kill radius and lots of collateral damage. Any commander who authorise it's use had better get a good target classification and confirmation first.

as for the part about breaking the enemie's spirit, it might backfire. revenge, rage, honour can be a great motivator and helps stiffen resistance. again, I don't mean to preach but war is not an excuse for acts for cruelty or barbarism. The days of decapitating the heads of defeated enemies and stacking them into pyramid towers are past. There are other ways of reducing the opposition's will to fight.

 

[gnotul]

I agree with PURSUIT CURVE who is affirming that in war there is no sweet way to beat an enemy. But I must say that in Iraq the U.S leaded Coalition is fighting not a War against an hostile country but against Global Terrorism.
As far as I am concern Terrorism is way of achieving political and economical targets using armed attacks against innocent people.
Well I am not able to see a true and sincere “Global War against Terrorism†if there is no plenty respect of innocent people.

Ciao

 

[driftder]

I agree with PURSUIT CURVE who is affirming that in war there is no sweet way to beat an enemy. But I must say that in Iraq the U.S leaded Coalition is fighting not a War against an hostile country but against Global Terrorism.
As far as I am concern Terrorism is way of achieving political and economical targets using armed attacks against innocent people.
Well I am not able to see a true and sincere “Global War against Terrorism†if there is no plenty respect of innocent people.

Ciao

now that's helpful - are you against the USA way of going after the terrs or are you saying that terrorism is an acceptable means to affect political change?

BTW since where in War is there respect for innocent people?

 

[gnotul]

well I am very sorry but my English is quite poor and sometimes I have difficulties explaining myself in a right way.

I wolud like to say only that U.S. Leaded Coalition should conduct this war avoiding any risk for innocent people.

I do not know a lot about the alleged phosphourus bombs used in iraq (I do not like too much the Italian TV Channel that showed the facts); I believe if it is true that were used to clear areas of Falluja causing civilian casualties pheraps this is not an onourable way to conduct a war against terrorism.

(Sorry what does it mean BTW?)

Ciao.

 

[aaaditya]

well white phosphorus seems to be a realy horrific stuff.
1)it has to be stored in water.
2)it ignites automatically at temperatures of around 30degrees centigrade and in the presence of air.
3)the fire cannot be put off with water.
4)it burns slowly through skin,flesh and bone(even if it is just a drop of the chemical),and is said to be pure agony ultimately resulting in death.
5)even if it is extinguished by any means ,it will reignite immediately on contact with air(it is highly unstable)

this the reason why red phosphorus is used in making matchsticks instead of white phosophorus (since red phosphorus is stable).

i would like some info on:
1)method used to extinguish a fire caused by white phosphorus?
2)the manner in which white phosphorus can be stabilised?
i dont think white phosphorus can be used in weapons like hand grenades (without some method to prevent its ignition in contact with air.).

 

[Pursuit Curve]

well white phosphorus seems to be a realy horrific stuff.
1)it has to be stored in water.
2)it ignites automatically at temperatures of around 30degrees centigrade and in the presence of air.
3)the fire cannot be put off with water.
4)it burns slowly through skin,flesh and bone(even if it is just a drop of the chemical),and is said to be pure agony ultimately resulting in death.
5)even if it is extinguished by any means ,it will reignite immediately on contact with air(it is highly unstable)

this the reason why red phosphorus is used in making matchsticks instead of white phosophorus (since red phosphorus is stable).

i would like some info on:
1)method used to extinguish a fire caused by white phosphorus?
2)the manner in which white phosphorus can be stabilised?
i dont think white phosphorus can be used in weapons like hand grenades (without some method to prevent its ignition in contact with air.).

Actually, Willy Pete ( WP ) has been used in grenades as well as Mortar Shells. I think that this discussion is taking a wrong turn somewhere.
While I am in agreement that the conflict should be fought according to the treaties and rules upheld by civillised nations, there is only so much one can do when Urban Combat situations are becoming more and more the norm. Yes, of course using incendiary ordance in built up areas where the civillian populations have not heeded the warnings to evacuate will bring civillian casualties. But the end game is to kill the enemy, no other purpose shall there be in this really crappy and murky situation that Coalition forces find themselves in. Thermobarics are also really nasty, and I guess in a perfect world the troops and the opposition would retire to an empty field somewhere and slug it out.

To be perfectly honest, if I was an insurgent, the first place I would want the Marines is a built up area, that way any screw up where a family is wiped out would be the perfect weapon to use against an enemies press and public opinion.

There is no perfect solution to the mess in Iraq, the troops were lied to, they now have a really crappy job to win in a situation where theer weren't terrorists before, but there are many made every day now just because some ass in another country saw an oppurtunity to get some oil in Iraq instead of fighting the real Terrorists in Afghanistan.

 

[turin]

But the end game is to kill the enemy, no other purpose shall there be in this really crappy and murky situation that Coalition forces find themselves in.

Following this argument would mean legitimization of basically any weapon that could do the job, no? Why not carpet bombing the whole area? This is of course ridiculous. Ordering an evacuation? These people live there and AFAIK no one invited the US to hunt guerillas...ah, I mean "terrorists", in these areas, their homes.
I agree, the troops are in a crappy situation.
However that does not mean they can switch to any weapon they feel fit for the objective of taking out the enemy. Apart from the fact that exactly because of such action as the WP thing the enemy will recruit further forces out of the population, the troops better ask, who really is responsible for that situation and how this situation could be changed without such an escalation that will only help the "real" terrorists, who spread the news and have a good time.

 

[KGB]

The US may or may not have used WP on civillians; all it takes is some carelesness or callousness on the part of a few men. The suspicious part for me is this; why did the RAI report call WP a chemical weapon? WP may be nasty and cruel, but its no more a chemical weapon than gunpowder. The reporter may have been confused, but it does make a sensationalist headline.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Why am I detecting a hint of political discussion going on here? If you are looking to blame somebody, go over to GTN. I see no reason to let this go on here.