The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

by Tom Tue Nov 15, 2005 20:54

I would think that knives, bullets, bombs, white phosphorous, napalm, nuclear weapons all do the same thing - kill and maim human beings. Why would it be especially shocking if one of these weapons is used rather than another?

by R. Isible Tue Nov 15, 2005 20:59

One type of weapon is specifically illegal in the situation of war. It further reinforces the point that this is an illegal war carried out by illegal methods by people that are willing to violate every norm of civilised western society.

by A10 Tue Nov 15, 2005 21:44

The weapons that are illegal in warfare.
Check the Hauge convention,not the many times quoted Geneva conventition
Any weapon that is designed to cause injury or mutilation,or blindness,or unnecessary suffering.
Bullets that are hollow,pointed,not coverd with a full metal jacket,barbed, or coverd or contains poision.
Remembering that this was written in 1905 and has been used as the standard ever since.It was outdated by 1918 with chemical warfare.It is nowadays about as much as a sponge to dry th Atlantic with.
But OTOH punji pts filled with bamboo spears smeared with human shit,mutillator mines, knee cappings ,or cutting heads off civillian hostages with swords also goes against the norms of all civillised behaviour as well.

by Barry Tue Nov 15, 2005 22:09

Theres certainly no such thing as a nice way to kill someone . Unfortunately substances like white phosphorus and napalm are particularly horrific ways to do so , not to mention being very indiscriminate . The deaths caused by them are agonising beyond imagination .That these weapons are being used in built up civilian areas against guerilla fighters among the population is unbelievable

by dr. strangelove Tue Nov 15, 2005 22:17

Hey Risible don't getcha knickers in a twist. Didnt'cha know that Winston Churchill used poison gas against the Kurds post WW I and in fact wanted to use it against the German civilian population in WWII but then settled for a bit of harmless carpet bombing .......

But let's not forget he was one of the good guys defending "every norm of civilised western society" just like Blair and Bush .......

Yeah "every norm of civilised western society" - ahem what planet do you guys live on ?

by redjade Tue Nov 15, 2005 23:00

• Monbiot credits the Blogosphere:
'...the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.'

The Bloggers that found this info were from DailyKos.com
read the details they found here:
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/164137/436

And then he Monbiot a key point....

'Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.'

If Saddam can be called inhumane for using chemical weapons, then what does it say about W Bush?

But this is just a point of rhetorical point to compare and contrast.

WP should not be used because it:

• Melts the Skin Off of Children
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/174518/797

by R.Isible Wed Nov 16, 2005 00:38

QUOTE: "Didnt'cha know that Winston Churchill used poison gas against the Kurds post WW I and in fact wanted to use it against the German civilian population in WWII but then settled for a bit of harmless carpet bombing"

So, your point is that because western capitalist governments engaged in war crimes in the past it's OK to do it now? Sorry, I don't buy that logic.

Maybe, you're a simple minded jingoist and didn't treat the phrase "civilised western society" carefully enough. To me that includes the pacifists that were given white feathers for refusing to fight in any of the capitalist wars, the volunteers that fought in the International Brigades in Spain, or as part of the leftwing resistance movements in Europe. It excludes the drones that signed up to fight because it was their patriotic duty or they were scared of the social pressure if they didn't. It leaves a grey space for those that were opposed to fascism for political reasons and saw a temporary alignment of their interests with those of the capitalists.

It doesn't include the planners and politicians that firebombed Dresden or nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now, can I have my knickers back if you've finished wearing them on your head?

by A10 Wed Nov 16, 2005 14:19

and undiscoverd historical fact.Could you please quote where the British used nerve gas/chemical weapons in the second world war?????As they had signed up to the non use of such in the leauge of nations.The only two countries who didnt sign up to it was the USA and Japan. I would have tipped more towards Germany using it as they developed Sarin,but it was not orderd to be used by Hitler,as the Germans feared the British did have somthing worse,they did VX.It was contemplated to be used by Churchill in a "doomsday" situation if the Germans invades the UK.But actually used in bombing raids on Germany......please inform us??

by Chekov Wed Nov 16, 2005 14:35

Firstly, 'dr strangelove' refered to post WW1, not WW2. Secondly, this is far from undiscovered. "Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job."

by A10 Wed Nov 16, 2005 14:45

Quote Dontcha know that Winston Churchil used poision gas against the Kurds post ww1,AND WANTED TO USE IT AGAINST THE GERMAN CIVILLIAN POUPLATION IN WW2,but settled for abit of harmless carpet bombing. Unquote [dr strangeglove].
[maybe you should go to Specsavers?]

Proof please of this?As I said it was known that both sides had developed Sarin and VX,but neither side was willing to initate it,as remember it wasnt too effective in WW1 and both sides had experianced it first hand. As for carpet bombing,well both sides used that,and not surprisingly as there wasnt very much accuracy in those days in bomb sights.

by Dr. Coilín ÓhAiseadha Wed Nov 16, 2005 17:25

Tom asked the above question.

Well, Tom, if the reason to invade Iraq was to oust a brutal dictator who ordered the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians from their homes (the Anfal campaign) and whose airforce allegedly used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in Halabja, then

BY THE SAME CRITERIA,

those who supported the invasion must also condemn the actions of a regime which ordered the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes in Fallujah and whose armed forces then used chemical weapons against those who stayed behind.

Also, if an armed occupation force of utterly inadequate magnitude is to achieve its strategic objectives, it might be thought that every effort must be made to "win hearts and minds". So, even if you considered the invasion justified, you might conclude that the use of gruesome weaponry in Fallujah was a heavy-handed boo-boo that has exacerbated the lose-lose situation created by the invasion.

Best regards,
Coilín.

by Dr. Coilín ÓhAiseadha Wed Nov 16, 2005 17:43

In case anybody is in any doubt as to the fact that white phosphorus was used in the offensive in Fallujah in November 2004, I refer to the article below, which appeared in Field Artillery Magazine March-April 2005:

The Fight for Fallujah

TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR:
Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah
By Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight

...
9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. For the 120-mm mortars, we had HE, illumination and WP with PD, delay and proximity fuzes. ...
...
b. White Phosphorous. 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.
...

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

Either somebody has been hacking into a dot-mil site and successfully maintained this PDF file there for a very long time, or this is the real mccoy.


Note the mission statement of Field Artillery Magazine:
Mission Statement

Field Artillery is a bimonthly magazine published by the US Army Field Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for Army and Marine Field Artillerymen stationed around the world.

As stated in the Field Artillery Journal, first published in 1911, the purpose of the magazine is “to disseminate professional knowledge and furnishing information as to the artillery’s progress, development and best use in campaign; ... all of which objects are worthy and contribute to the good of our country.”

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/

I doubt that the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah actually serves the good of the United States.

Best,
Coilín.

by kintama Wed Nov 16, 2005 21:10

Good link on a previous thread dated 11/11/2005 with video of the use by US forces of white phosphorus . If the amount dropped by these mass murderers was for illumination purposes only then every US pilot must be in urgent need of an eyesight test. The spread of this chemical weapon could in no way discriminate between civilians and insurgents and US military commanders must have known that in the quantities used many deaths would have been inevitable.
Iraqis murdered by chemical weapons, prisoners tortured and starved an economy and infrastructure in ruins surely the Americans must invade to stop this ruthless regime. Oh shit they have invaded, it is their regime bring on the Russians quick.