White phosphorus in Falluja
The US Army has admitted it used white phosphorus, a chemical that eats flesh, in the battle of Falluja. A few days ago allegations were made on Italian TV that the substance was used as a weapon and killed civilians. The US military denied the allegations.
Over at Sir Humphries, a Lemur huffed, describing a military source of the story, Jeff Englehart, as "just the guy you should trust as a source for an anti-war story with major ramifications for international goodwill towards the Bush Administration and the United States."
However, the March edition of Field Artillery (PDF) magazine, published by the US Army and a must read for the artilleryman in a hurry, admits white phosphorus was used as a weapon in Falluja.
Hat tip Daily Kos.
Update: Scoop has an article here. The US has corrected its original statement (correction now in Scoop story at end) that phosphorus was only used for illumination, saying it was used for creating smoke. Antarctic Lemur points out the BBC has said the Italian report "may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading."
Debate goes on over whether phosphorus can, or should, be called a chemical weapon and its effects on humans. However, it should be noted at least two other reports from the battlefield appear to back Englehart's claims. This from the Washington Post:
Over at Sir Humphries, a Lemur huffed, describing a military source of the story, Jeff Englehart, as "just the guy you should trust as a source for an anti-war story with major ramifications for international goodwill towards the Bush Administration and the United States."
However, the March edition of Field Artillery (PDF) magazine, published by the US Army and a must read for the artilleryman in a hurry, admits white phosphorus was used as a weapon in Falluja.
WP proved to 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.So much for that international goodwill. The documentary is here in low res.
Hat tip Daily Kos.
Update: Scoop has an article here. The US has corrected its original statement (correction now in Scoop story at end) that phosphorus was only used for illumination, saying it was used for creating smoke. Antarctic Lemur points out the BBC has said the Italian report "may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading."
Debate goes on over whether phosphorus can, or should, be called a chemical weapon and its effects on humans. However, it should be noted at least two other reports from the battlefield appear to back Englehart's claims. This from the Washington Post:
Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.Me? I'm going to wait till the smoke clears ...
posted by Rob O'Neill at 7:21 PM
4 Comments:
To quote from a Reuters article of two days ago:
"The U.S. Marines in Baghdad described white phosphorus as a "conventional munition" used primarily for smoke screens and target marking."
A standard munition used in artillery shells, mortars and flares. Probably not much of a scoop for Kos there.
The Italian documentary is suggesting that the US military has deliberately targeted civilians with napalm, white phosphorus and some other unspecified chemical weapon. I'm sure you'd find this suggestion as abhorrent as I do. Kinda makes you wonder who those crazy Italians (and their supporters) are rooting for, doesn't it?
'huffed' - taking a leaf out of Brown's book Rob? You're descending into a snarky name caller.
Englehart was the sole primary source of the RIA item; he claimed civilians in Falluja had been attacked with incendiary white phosphorous munitions. Those words are normally used to describe an incendiary petrol-air device where the petroleum component is ignited by white phosphorus; old name napalm. From what I understand there would be little left of any body attacked by with a napalm-like device.
On the other hand, white phosphorus munitions are produced for artillery cannons, mortars and infantry use (hand grenades). Note the lack of 'incendiary' before the WP. It is primarily used to generate smoke, though it can be used to attack infantry as some of the phosphorus survives the initial explosion and falls on exposed skin and flammable objects such as clothing.
The paragraph you and the Kos kids misrepresent says nothing about using an incendiary device (probably because there is no such thing anymore as an incendiary artillery shell), and certainly nothing about attacking civilians.
I have a question for you though. Are you on a mission to intentionally misepresent the US military, or do you actually not understand the difference between a claim of intentionally using a napalm-like device against civilians (a war crime if ever there was one) versus the firing of phosphorus shells at (or above) the enemy?
Or are you simply a reactionary leftie out to defend a decade or so worth of built-up hatred for the United States, and not able or willing to understand there might be a greater enemy?
Cripes, that Al's an excitable young lad. We could use him in the army.
Anyway, thanks for alerting us to this one, Rob. I don't expect any admission of guilt and/or responsibility anytime this decade though. When was it that the Pentagon finally admitted the damage that Agent Orange did during the Vietname War? 1988 wasn't it? And they're still legendary for hiding the truth about the dangers of depleted uranium - mainly from their own trailer-trash front line troops.
But, oops: Maybe Al thinks that pointing out these facts is more evidence of 'built-up hatred'?
"huffed" isn't name calling AL, it's characterisation. (But okay, I'll take that on board and restrain myself)
This is a simple question of fact, AL. The US military said WP was used for illumination.
It's pretty clear it was used in broad daylight and not for illumination from this report:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt
Which also alludes to it being used indiscriminately.
You have no idea of what sources the Italian TV guys used. You only know what they put to air.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home