It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US Used White Phosphorus on Iraqi Civilians-Report

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The U.S. Military is now being accused of using white phosphorous as well as other incendiary devices against military targets in Iraq during the battle of Falluja. The incendiary weapons that were used not only killed military targets but also civilian women and children reports an Italian State broadcaster the RIA. Incendiary devices like white phosphorous and the mark 77 firebomb were banned by the Geneva Convention. The U.S. did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention a U.N. official in New York said.
 



today.reut ers.com
ROME (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq have used incendiary white phosphorus against civilians and a firebomb similar to napalm against military targets, Italian state-run broadcaster RAI reported on Tuesday.

A RAI documentary showed images of bodies recovered after a November 2004 offensive by U.S. troops on the town of Falluja, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against men, women and children who were burned to the bone.

An incendiary device, white phosphorus is used by the military to conceal troop movements with smoke, mark targets or light up combat areas. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980.

The United States did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention, a U.N. official in New York said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You know I don’t know what disturbs me more the fact that the U.S. used these weapons or the fact that every time the U.S. doesn’t like what is the right thing do to they just ignore it and do what they want. This seems to be the American way. Every time the world agrees on the best thing to do like banning these weapons the U.S. just uses them anyway. And then they expect every other country in the world to do what they want? I’ve always been taught that your suppose to lead by example, and id have to say that so far the U.S. isn’t setting a very good example.

Related News Links:

www.bbc.co.uk

www.rainews24.rai.it
www.rainews24.rai.it

[edit on 8-11-2005 by North Rider]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by North Rider]




posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The US didn't use these weapons, the original reporter that made these baseless claims did a poor job of 'research', which apparently consisted of....well, nothing.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I knew this would cause a big controversy, and gee, Whatreallyhappened.com isnt exactly a reliable newsource, so i chose not to post it and sit back and wait.

They did say the news was out in the U.K. and it would soon go across the world.
I dont know if this is true or not. I hope its not true. I chose to beleive its not true.

It will be the news of the day.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

the DEFENSE MINISTER OF BRITAIN confirm the use of indiscriminate incendiary devices being used on a civilian population center.


What do you choose to believe now ?

just add it to the long list of ignored stories....

Torture
GAO Report on Election Fraud
Pat Robertson's business ties
Halliburton, Bechtel, and Carlyle Group
The 52 Warnings prior to 9/11
The Downing Street Memo
The 9/11 Report's Omissions and Distortions
Patriot Act I and II
Bush family's connections to the Bin Laden Family.
Anthrax (it came from Fort Detrick, yes an American military base....where is the media? Sound of crickets chirping)



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is the reason i chose not to post this story. We, as Americans wont buy it, not until it hits Fox news.
Denial is an option here.

Nevertheless, thank you for the post. I voted "yes"



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This story has been debunked several times and it is totally false.

Here is the official state Department statement it points out more then one or two errors made by the press and those making the accusations

usinfo.state.gov...



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I think the authors point is that the news is breaking all over the world, even as we speak.

You're just not hearing it here.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Don't take these "reports" at face value until having seen the video referenced therein.

For the most part it's a compilation of photos and video clips that have been circulating the web for quite some time, many of which are represented entirely out of context in an attempt to support their claims.

ATS thread - Falluja WMD horror scoop aired tomorrow

- Since the video is realized by the Italian PUBLIC television network (like BBC), the most important in the country, the airing was preceded by an HUGE press conference where most foreign mainstream press was attending. CNN, BBC, NYT, name them: they were ALL present and had the knowledge of the video one day in advance.


[sarcasm] I'd be surprised if this even makes it to Rense[/sarcasm]

Personally, I'd liken the misleading headline to your local supermarket advertising oranges, and when you get there it's apples ... and rotten ones at that!


Peace2All

[edit on 11/9/2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Bush loyalists may not feel video of what appears to be white phosphorous being used against urban targets (maybe they hired ILM to fake it?), or eyewitness testimony is particularly compelling evidence, however fortunately for the species not everyone is a Bush loyalist. Frankly, I don't think there's any evidence the hardcore true believers will accept. Video is ignored or explained away with absurd speculations ("it was a C-130 innocently dropping flares!" yeah, right), were forensic evidence to be presented no doubt they would claim it was faked. People tend to see only what they want to see...

To me the white phosphorous story makes sense, matches the available evidence, and is far easier to accept than earlier reports of chemical blistering agents being used. I really doubt the US is going to break out the mustard gas and VX to put down the insurgency - just too politically risky. Incendiaries though, they seem to feel they can get away with.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

by xmotex:
Bush loyalists may not feel video of what appears to be white phosphorous being used against urban targets (maybe they hired ILM to fake it?), or eyewitness testimony is particularly compelling evidence, however fortunately for the species not everyone is a Bush loyalist

[edited for emphasis]
First off the "what appears to be white phosphorous" has not been substantiated by any type of forensic evidence whatsoever.


by xmotex:
Frankly, I don't think there's any evidence the hardcore true believers will accept.


For the record ... I am not a Bush loyalist by any standard. However, I refuse to sit idly by and allow the referenced video to be accepted as factual reporting with any sense of journalistic integrity.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   


First off the "what appears to be white phosphorous" has not been substantiated by any type of forensic evidence whatsoever.


And you think forensic teams are going to be allowed in to run tests?

"Excuse me, US Marine Corps, get out of our way! We have important tests to run." Sure.

There is however, pretty unambiguous video footage. Unless of course a C-130 was for some unfathomable reason doing low alt cargo drops over rooftops in the middle of a hot combat zone...

Now do I think the US went into Fallujah attempting to waste a bunch of noncombatants? No, I think we went in trying to root out insurgents. However it appears we did a good job reducing the civilian population of Fallujah in the process. Apparently the administration feels that was acceptable (especially if they can get away with hiding it). I don't.

[edit on 11/9/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The biggest reason to not listen to this nonsense is that it makes no strategic sense to drop,of all things, white phosphourous upon falluja. If you want to burn them out, there are far better things to use to destroy the city and if you want to wipe them out, you'd just use sarin or VX gas. Not white phosphourous. Just because someone is saying that its being used as a weapon hardly makes it true. And I daresay, if the US was dumping smoldering phosphorous on falluja, then there definitly wouldn't be an resurgence of insurgent activity.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
VIDEO LINK

In all honesty the evidence presented in the documentary is inconclusive, and the film-makers use some questionable editing techniques to sway the viewer's opinion.

* Corpses shown are in an advanced state of decay, making the claims of "flesh burnt away" impossible to confirm without medical examination.

* Footage of corpses in homes is inconclusive.

* The two marines interviewed were only briefly in the Fallujah combat zone, and their evidence for the use of White Phosphorous (WP) weapons is that they heard it over general transmissions. This however does not directly contradict the US miltary's statement that the WP weapons are only used for illumination at night. One marine's comment that he heard the words "commence bombing" in relation to the WP weapons seems as if it may have been an ad-lib.

* The footage of the helicopter spraying some type of either incendiary or light-emitting round on an unclear region is perhaps the most damning evidence, but is still inconclusive and would need to be viewed by a munitions expert for clarification. Furthermore the presence of civilians in the target zone cannot be confirmed from the footage alone.





* The famous night-vision footage of an attack helicopter shooting Iraqis around a truck was added in and edited to remove the segment of the footage where one of them throws what is possibly a weapon into the field, and the helicopter crew ask for confirmation from command before engaging. However this editing, and whether or not it was intended to sway opinion , has no bearing on the claims of WP weapons being used on civilians.


The documentary should certainly inspire further investigation into the events which transpired at Fallujah, a portion of the conflict which the international media were actively hindered from analysing, but it by no means constitutes conclusive evidence of the use of incendiary weapons on civilians.

[edit on 2005-11-9 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
In any military aircraft, the flare systems release one flare per box. Some systems are programmed to automatically release a preset amount of flares when any crew member hits the big red emergency "hey there's a missile or something flying at us."

Bigger aircraft, for obvious reasons, have more boxes than helicopters. That footage above couldn't be the normal defensive flares at all.

However I'm not familiar with white phosphorous flares as I never had to be in an area with them. I don't know of any dispensers big enough to fire off that many of any kind of flare at all. Rockets maybe, but not flares.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...


White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death

...

White phosphorus is used by the military in various types of ammunition, and to produce smoke for concealing troop movements and identifying targets.

...

How can white phosphorus affect my health?
...
Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.

Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.



As Nygdan said, it makes no strategic sense to drop white phosphorous upon Falluja.
That is, unless your strategy is to cause pain and suffering.
If the military is indeed using WP in this manner then it should most defiantly raise concern. I've read many people say that WP is not a chemical weapon. If it is being used this way then it most defiantly a chemical weapon, just like uranium munitions would be.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

as posted by wecomeinpeace
The footage of the helicopter spraying some type of either incendiary or light-emitting round on an unclear region is perhaps the most damning evidence, but is still inconclusive and would need to be viewed by a munitions expert for clarification. Furthermore the presence of civilians in the target zone cannot be confirmed from the footage alone.

And though it may seem as "damning evidence," having been in combat and having been involved in a pilot rescue operation which required the use of white phosphorus, I will simply state, as I have numerous times before on this issue, what that helicopter is doing is letting loose white phospherous canisters for the main purpose of illuminating. White phospherous is primarily used to thwart incoming anti-aircraft missiles, for the night illumination purposes, for artillery and mortar fire-for-effect spotting rounds, and for the laying of smoke [ie: cover] as an active battlefield or combat area of operations cover [ie: also applied to smoke grenades, just a smaller scale].

I guess according to this so-called report, the use of any type explosive or like type white phospherous devices would be considered using chemical weapons, or WMDs, eh?

At any rate, the use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II. What is restricted is the purposeful and malicious targeting or making civilian populations the object of attack by incendiary weapons and restricts the use of incendiary weapons against military targets located within a concentration of civilians, and from what evidences are given and shown, there is little to no evidence given to conclusively indicate or prove that the US did in fact purposely and maliciously target civilains for attack with white phospherous or other incendiary weaponry or devices in or within Fallujah.

Probably will not be long before reports start circulating that the US somehow used Agent Orange in Fallujah and parts of Iraq, as well.






seekerof

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Umbrax wrote:
...it makes no strategic sense to drop white phosphorous upon Falluja.


It makes perfect sense if you are trying to conceal the use of such tactics. The dual use of WP as a weapon and as an illumination or concealment method provides plausible deniability if evidence of its use is found. Banned chemical weapons/nerve agents are a different story.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The US didn't use these weapons, the original reporter that made these baseless claims did a poor job of 'research', which apparently consisted of....well, nothing.


Wow. You are so certain, and what makes you so sure? This isn't new information, it's just the first BIG telling of it. As a matter of fact, this whole issue was talked about while it happened in several online places. There are even pictures of the bodies. DailyKosDailyKos DailyKos has a pretty good article about it today (it is a liberal blog, so you will need to scroll down a bit on the main page to reach it). An Army publication actually admits it! There is also a link there to an imbedded journalists site who wrote about it at the time.
WP (white phosphorous) has been used since WWII...it is meant to be used for lighting up an area to see enemy positions. When used as a weapon it is horrifying...it burns at something like 3000 (yes, that's three THOUSAND) degrees F. It ignites when it hits the air, and when the powder is inhaled is burns you from the inside.
WP is not the only banned substance we KNOW the US has used...they also used Napalm - they just changed the name and the chemical makeup a bit, but it is STILL Napalm. There is also the issue of DU (depleted Uranium). This will last for over a thousand years...several thousand years possibly. The effects of this are already being shown here in the US in returning soldiers and their children. The people in Iraq are showing the same thing...deformities at birth, poisoning, etc.
Our government has a very long history of this sort of thing. Anyone who believes we stopped doing (insert horror here) after Vietnam is sadly mistaken.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
The US already admitted to using the phosphorous stuff - they insisted it was used only for illumination, and also, pointed out that the US never signed the Geneva Convention banning its use...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
If white phosophorous was supposedly used in the video footage, I have two points I'd wish to make.

First of all, the dogs' bodies are completely intact. Wouldn't they be reduced to a skeletal mass, also?

Secondly, regarding the boy whose head "started to change:" why was he exposed to the white phosphorous, and not his parents? There is no mention of his mother's death, and the father appears quite healthy. He is the only child mentioned with a deformity, and the fact that he seems somewhat content can only be surmised as his having been born with it.

I'm not disputing the usage of "White Phosphorous," I am saying that the film is definitely propaganda.

A few more remarks. All watermarks used by networks have been removed. No credits were given to the various photographers who shot the footage. It was all cropped and bundled together.

Dot.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join