Chemical Weapon Claims
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, WarThis time it’s not a story concerning intelligence relating to the existence of chemical weapons by the Iraqis.
No, instead a disturbing and questionable report has been published regarding claims alleging use of chemical weapons by the U.S. during last year’s attack on Fallujah.
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
Unreported by any Western journalists?
Please!
No journalist worth his or her salt would let a story like this go by when it occurred. It would be the same as a shark ignoring a blood trail in the water.
As we can all attest through the non-stop media coverage during that time, there were journalists aplenty to report on these alleged atrocities.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it’s known as Willy Pete.
Consider the sources of this report, an Italian state broadcaster and a former soldier - no doubt, disgruntled, disturbed or both.
Yep, what credibility!
Read the report and draw your own conclusions.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2005 and is filed under In The News, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Yes and it’s incredibly dangerous stuff. If you ever see it you need to get away immediately because it marks the spot where the bombs are going to hit.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Jason van Steenwyk has a good commentary on this:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/11/willie-pete.html. His bottom line: “It is perfectly legal to fire WP at any target you can fire HE at. There is no international agreement banning its use”.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:28 am
I agree…the likelihood of the entirety of Western media failing to register massive use of a weapon that leaves distinctive burns is very low…
Course it’s always possible someone did a great cleanup job, but frankly I don’t think our military is THAT effective…and unless they murdered everyone in the city, surely some Iraqis would have talked before now, and Al Jazeera would have played it for all it was worth.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:59 am
This is just some foreign journalist trying to make a story out of something. While civilian casualties are unfortunate, there was nothing
illegal done if WP was used. WP is just an incindiary, not a chemical weapon. It’s even issued in hand grenade form.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Listen, I think we need to just let this one play itself out. Doubt is fine, but doubt just because our media didn’t cover it? Well, you also complain about our media not giving us the whole story in Iraq? You can’t have it both ways…
Remember, these things happened in Vietnam to innocent civilians, so it’s not exactly unlikely that they didn’t happen here. Was it on purpose? I’m 99% sure it wasn’t, since I know what this stuff is used for. But what’s the appearance of doing this and then not owning up to it? Again, it’s damning, and our military and our Administration seems to have a serious accountability problem, which recently culminated in Bush publicly saying that the US doesn’t torture people, while Cheney seeks to keep “every” option on the table. Ridiculous stuff!!!
Again, let this one play out before you cry foul. There may be more to this story than you may think.
And Denise, to assume that this soldier is simply some disgruntled person, well, you can do better than that.
November 8th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Well, supposedly they have video and pics to prove it…
http://www.rainews24.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784
Their website didn’t load for me, not surprisingly with the thousands probably trying to access it.
November 8th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Justin,
You have to look at motivation when a story such as this is presented. Without any inkling from the numerous sources (media and otherwise) over the past year that an incident described as such had occurred should cause one pause.
Would a soldier who is satisfied with being a soldier have presented such a tale?
The man identifies himself as an ex-soldier, an ex-Marine … ex-Marine? There’s no way a Marine would identify himself as anything but a Marine.
Sorry, but there is more to the story there and a disgruntled soldier is one who would play into this type of reporting tactic.
Agreed that we’ll want to digest more of the detail as it becomes available, but there’s a human nature element that should be acknowledged in the analysis.
November 8th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
A thin line
Until this is jumped on by other news outlets, particularly mainstream American ones, I will view it with a skeptical eye. The Independent is reporting that evidence has emerged suggesting that the U.S. dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus, a…
November 8th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Denise,
“Would a soldier who is satisfied with being a soldier have presented such a tale?”
So, I guess that because a soldier is presenting a information that is unfavorable to the administration, he is automatically “disgruntled.” And since he is disgruntled, he cannot be trusted. It looks like any information that is unfavorable to the administration is automtatically untrustworthy, according to you.
Without knowing what is going on for sure in this case, isn’t possible that someone in the military could be a whistleblower without ulterior motives?
November 8th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Socks Clinton,
Of course, anything is possible…
With that said though, there would be more credence to that assertion if the whistleblower had engaged a more reputable media representative (yeah, I know reputable and media in the same sentence is an oxymoron : ) Why would he go to this source instead of the mainstream media who are just as hungry for such a story?
Not automatically untrustworthy, although again you have to question motivation and how he is arriving at the conclusions (or possibly having his words twisted) when there was ample opportunity for this type of news to have been shared by more reputable sources.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
The United States is not a signatory to the convention which prohibits the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus. I don’t know enough to say whether we should or should not be. But it’s definitely not a treaty violation by us.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Socks - Considering the take down of the lies by ex-Marine and anti-war darling Jimmy Massey by the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, I think that any story that hasn’t been verified by several sources and triple checked isn’t worth the paper its printed on.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
The Independent is virulently anti-American and anti-war (Robert Fisk is, or was, their lead man in Iraq), yet it is, once you peel back the editorializing, a leading Western media outlet. Which probably speaks more about the Western media than it does about the Independent’s probity.
The reporting they’re doing here seems to be mostly second-hand: Reporting anecdotal evidence and claims and photographs gathered by other, less reputable media. It’s not a good job, frankly. Like NBC news picking up a story from the National Enquirer — a la Clinton’s sex affairs.
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Clinton really did have affairs. But it means it’s not necessarily right, either.
I’m still trying to picture what’s left that I’d call “reputable media” on a case like this. I honestly can’t think of one.
A “chemical weapon” is not simply a weapon that has chemicals in it. It’s a weapon that kills primarily by chemical action.
Anyone want to spare a minute to suggest the “insurgents” have an accountability problem for deliberately mingling into a densely populated civilian area and waging war from there with utter disregard for civilian life — nay, with deliberate intent to get as many civilians killed as possible as part of their mission.
November 8th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Callimachus,
Excellent point and one that doesn’t get touted as much as it should.
To not hold the insurgents accountable in this regard is an absolution of sorts.
November 8th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
“This idea that DPICM is somehow more humane than WP is a feel-good illusion propogated by people who lead sheltered lives.”
[Warning: Half-naked Larry the Cable Guy ad alert]
November 10th, 2005 at 12:30 am
[...] Via Protein Wisdom, Donkelphant, Daily Ablution, and Balloon Juice, Twice. [link] [Trackback URL] [...]
November 17th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
So, how about the US admitting to using WP to “fire at the enemy” after originally saying that it was only used as an illuminant? It looks like this case has been closed for a few days and no one had commented.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327543.ece
On a side note, I think it’s hilarious that the Pentagon even has to deny doing anything wrong when accusations first come up. We know the answer before we hear it. We know they deny everything until presented with undeniable evidence. Does anyone believe what a Pentagon spokesman has to say?