US used chemical weapons in Iraq

[shawn]

It seems the US government has used chemical weapons in Iraq and covered the entire thing up.

I can't believe I was actually somewhat suprised at this but I should have known. This article is from the Huffington Post.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/7/11819/9522Website here </a>

[Danoz]

Is this the only source? I ran a search for this over an academic licence Lexis Nexis and found literally nothing. Some of you very seriously need to be more critical of internet sources with sensational news like this. Embracing every conspiracy that floats around is extremely short-sighted. I even checked all recent newspapers in ITALY. It could be real information, but it's certainly not coming up on the wire. Show me an article with some credibility next time.

[pipes]

Yeah that is hard to believe.

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Show me an article with some credibility next time.

<hr></blockquote>
And how stupid are you going to look if this does show up on the wire tomorrow?

If (and I stress if) this story does turn out to be true, how much attention does this story get?

[Blade556]

I wonder if thats the reason for so many civilian casualites...Half a million wouldn't really come oout from multiple bombings of Iraqi cities, but maybe I'm just guessing...

[Danoz]

> And how stupid are you going to look if this does show up on
> the wire tomorrow?

I guess we'd cross that bridge when we came to it <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

If (and I stress if) this story does turn out to be true, how much attention does this story get?

<hr></blockquote>

If Italy publically denounced the United States by posting "evidence" of American-led mass killing of civilians, I assure you, it would be news. Even if it were downplayed in the US, international media would be all over it.

[GeminiMan]

I agree. I have seen nothing of this on news sources that have true credibility. I'm not saying that it won't show up on the news tomorrow, but I'm not yet at all convinced by what this source has to say.

[Reaper man]

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dailykos>interesting</a>

so you get your news from a political blog?? I'm with Danoz on this. I want to see something from like the AP, BBC, or something like that.

[Dark Knight Kain]

> Is this the only source?

I saw the video, it's real. It's fucking terrible.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmvhttp://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv</a>

[Diskeater]

Not saying one way or another, but the article that the blog refers to seems pretty legit.

[Danoz]

The problem is that people hate this country and the administration so much, that literally, any source confirming their hatred will do. They'll eat it up like poison candy and post it on forums like this. People like to be reaffirmed, even if the affirming source is conspirital nonsense.

[Blade556]

Well, it's just too bad that a US soldier who actively partipated in the war and witnessed the use of Chemical Weapons just testified on camera.

I can't wait till this gets out to the wide public <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I can't wait till this gets out to the wide public

<hr></blockquote>

Point proven. Not only do you eat it up, but you revel in the misfortune of anothers-- anything bad about America. If it were in fact, a true story, your big toothed smiley face is in poor taste in light of mass murdered civilians. Again, where are you sources?

[Mr. Saturn]

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm>BBC article.</a>

[Dark Knight Kain]

> The problem is that people hate this country and the
> administration so much, that literally, any source
> confirming their hatred will do. They'll eat it up like
> poison candy and post it on forums like this. People like to
> be reaffirmed, even if the affirming source is conspirital
> nonsense.

Watch the video, tell me those are not real bodies. Even if the soldiers were lying out of there teeth the fact is those are chemical-burned bodies and that won't change no matter how much bullshit you spout.

You won't watch it, you're afraid to. You're afraid your magical fantasy world where the US is always right and the world is just out to get us will shatter.

[Mr. Saturn]

> The problem is that people hate this <s>country and the</s>
> administration so much, that literally, any source
> confirming their hatred will do. They'll eat it up like
> poison candy and post it on forums like this. People like to
> be reaffirmed, even if the affirming source is conspirital
> nonsense.

Fixed.

[Blade556]

> where are you sources?

Did you even watch the fucking video? Did you see ANY of the horribly burned bodies from White Phosphorous contact?

Open your eyes. Don't be so blindly following your president. The strikes were authorized and they were done on Fallujah, and maybe even elsewhere.

[Diskeater]

Love/hatred of administration does NOT equal love/hatred of America.

Well put.

[The 9th Sage]

> BBC article.

Man, one more reason to hate the current administration. The irony of this is that if the insurgents were using these weapons on us, it'd be all over the US news, likely with phrases like the horrors of war, etc.

[Blade556]

Bush needs to be arrested, and warrants put out for his name dead or alive in other countries.

Thats all. It's been needed to be said ever since the War in Iraq started.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Blade556 on 11/08/05 12:58 PM.</FONT></P>

[JadussD]

> Did you even watch the fucking video? Did you see ANY of
> the horribly burned bodies from White Phosphorous contact?

I'm starting to get a feeling that this is true. I stopped believing "rumors" a long time ago. Rumors in war are just propaganda created by the masses, for the masses. But this is shaping up to be something different. I didn't buy it before, and most of the news sources so far are definitely slanted against the US (Al Jazeera anyone?), but I'm starting to think that the mainstream media are just trying to sort the facts from the baseless accusations and figure out how to present this. It'll probably be presented as a story where what they are covering is that someone is ACCUSING us of doing it, not as a question like "Did we do it?" The mainstream media has to be very careful not to piss off our government too much, that's who gets them their exclusive coverage.

Here's http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.htmlsomething from the Christian Science Monitor</A> I just found after writing the above:

RAI says the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas amounts to the illegal use of chemical weapons, although the BBC notes that such bombs are considered incendiary devices. The US military admits to using the weapon to illuminate battlefields in Iraq, and says it did so in Fallujah, but insists it did not use it in civilian areas. Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting white phosphorus devices.

So they admit to using it for the purpose of "illuminating battlefields" (ie, FALLUJAH), but it's known that using it will melt the flesh of anyone within 150 meters, especially in a CITY? Sounds like the military is feeding us some bullshit to me!

Now, it appears that they have a way out of this, in that according to whoever is in charge of creating important loopholes via semantics, it's an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon. That means we'll get out of this with nothing but a tarnished reputation, since hey, it's an incendiary device not a chemical weapon (Like our international rep could get any worse...)

[Dark Knight Kain]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Bush needs to be arrested, and warrants put out for his name dead or alive in other countries.

<hr></blockquote>

It's not just Bush, this whole administration needs to go (And we're the ones who have to make them go, they'll stay in power as long as we don't do anything.)

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The US military admits to using the weapon to illuminate battlefields in Iraq

<hr></blockquote>

From what I'm hearing it's used in the form of a flare attached to a parachute when illuminating a battlefield, no dropped on the city like the video shows.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Dark Knight Kain on 11/08/05 02:06 PM.</FONT></P>

[MooglyGuy]

> The problem is that people hate this country and the
> administration so much, that literally, any source
> confirming their hatred will do. They'll eat it up like
> poison candy and post it on forums like this. People like to
> be reaffirmed, even if the affirming source is conspirital
> nonsense.

I agree that people are frothing at the mouth to try to find something to blame on the military, Bush, and administration. I also agree that it'd be nice to see an article with some sort of verifiable veracity rather than some pol-blog. However, I have to concur with Mr. Saturn that the vast majority of us love our country, no doubt about it, but some of us disagree with where the administration is taking the country - we don't dislike the US of A itself.

Also, I have to wonder, since apparently in your eyes this forum is a festering pit of liberalism, evil, and people who hate America - "...and post it on forums like this," why do you even stay here? Your 3D renderings are nice, but we wouldn't shed a tear for the loss of your constant political invective-hurling. <img src=smilies/eek13.gif>

[MooglyGuy]

> BBC article.

Look, I like a reason to dislike the administration as much as the next libertarian, but let's look at this from a logical standpoint: They're incendiary devices. "But wait," I hear your exclaim, "That's just a classification so the USA can stay blameless!" Well, they may be classified as such, but I doubt it's for some horribly evil reason so that they can use it on the poor, poor Iraqi civilians who are clutching babies to their chests and so on. More than likely, the devices were in fact used to illuminate the battlefield, and perhaps some of the white phosphorous devices mis-fired and scattered their payload a bit too far. Let's not beat around the bush, here - as much as you want to blame Bush, misfiring (or whatnot) devices used for illumination are not on par with, say, using VX or Sarin gas to flush civilians and their weeping babes out of some occupied building - not that I'm saying anyone on either side of the fence has done this.

Let's not let our emotions and dislike of the administration get the better of us, shall we?

[Diskeater]

> Also, I have to wonder, since apparently in your eyes this
> forum is a festering pit of liberalism, evil, and people who
> hate America - "...and post it on forums like this," why do
> you even stay here? Your 3D renderings are nice, but we
> wouldn't shed a tear for the loss of your constant political
> invective-hurling.

Danoz is smart enough to decide for himself whether he wants to stay or not. I think a more appropriate response would've been "stay out of the backroom" rather than "get off ZMB." I, for one, would miss him.

[Reaper man]

> BBC article.
that works, thank you.

go USA <img src=smilies/erm.gif>

really we should be ahsamed of ourselves (well ok, not all of us, just the people who support the current administation) <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

[pipes]

> BBC article.

"Italian state TV, Rai, has"

They don't even claim its true, and just say the Italians do.

[GeminiMan]

I think it's still too early for me to formulate a true opinion on this matter. On one hand, people were probably burned/killed by the white phosphorus. But, as Moogle has stated, who's to say that a weapon didn't malfunction and cause this to happen? I expect that a lot more will develop out of this story, and when enough information is available, this will be a hot topic on radio, TV, and newspapers across the country (and world, for that matter).

And why is Danoz being attacked so much? Up to this point, he has done little more than ask for a reliable source and question the original source posted (and as everyone should know, one source for information is never really enough), and he hasn't made a response since the article from the BBC has gone up.
Also, we don't have many full-on republicans on this board, and he's one of the only real balances to this dominately left-wing forum.

Now, as a final note, I'd like to add that may not be so easily blamable this on Bush (or his administration), even if the allegations turn out to be true. If orders to actually attack the Iraqis with white phosphorus really were given, it was probably by someone in the middlish ranks of the military rather than a higher up.
If someone did give the order, they will hopefully be charged with war crimes.

Oh, and no, I have yet to watch this video, so I don't really know all of what it contains besides what I've read.
It will be interesting to see how all of this develops in the coming days.

[Danoz]

> BBC article.

Thanks for the article. It certainly isn't proof that the United States mass murdered civilians, but it tells me we have a real issue on our hands. What concerns me is the fact that an already very anti-American international community will gobble this up. We'll see how this plays out. And remember, this is an article about an accusation, not an article outlining evidence of atrocities. My skepticism is hardly out of blind love for the administration, I'm not a fan of the way this war has been handled (or, in retrospect, initiated). With that, I'm not about to file American soldiers in with Nazis because some Italian 20/20 wants me to.

[phonymike]

I agree with danoz. until the president is taken up on charges and arrested for war crimes, then he's never done anything bad to nobody. he's the best president ever.

[Isildur]

> I agree with danoz. until the president is taken up on
> charges and arrested for war crimes, then he's never done
> anything bad to nobody. he's the best president ever.
>

Lol, because Danoz is like conservative and stuff so he must be nuts! So lets not take him at his word when he says stuff like
"My skepticism is hardly out of blind love for the administration, I'm not a fan of the way this war has been handled (or, in retrospect, initiated)."
because it's so much more fun to put words into his mouth, hahaha!

<img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

<p id="signature">

<center><img src=http://pages.nyu.edu/~jc73/misc/FieryAshNazg.gif></center></p>

[Reaper man]

> I agree with danoz. until the president is taken up on
> charges and arrested for war crimes, then he's never done
> anything bad to nobody. he's the best president ever.

<a href=http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/09/afx2328524.html>Not accouding to the majority of the US who like to express their opinion and take polls</a>

really, he is not the best president, ever, period.

When I think great president, I think Lincoln, not that excuse for a president Bush

unless you were being sarcastic. If so, then disregard this post <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

[Dark Knight Kain]

Danoz, here's a little more evidence for you:

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdfMarch edition of Field Artillery Magazine</a> (It's on page five of the file, or page 26 of the magazine)

And here's news story about WP rounds:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txthttp://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt</a> (From April)

[UncleOral]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


My skepticism is hardly out of blind love for the administration


<hr></blockquote>
No, you're right, it is not so much love for the administration as it is love for your country, and you will forgive almost any transgression done while upholding said love.
I'll never in a million years believe that it is not blind, either. I still remember your previous defenses. (http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=247751&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0)

As for the case; it seems most evidence is pointing to that they did in fact use WP as an offensive weapon to flush them out of their spider holes and trenches; which contradicts what the state department and military has publically stated. Of course, it could be a case of left hand does not not what right hand does and them just trying to cover all bases with a blanket lie...it really annoys me how they would much rather cover everything up instead of take responsibility and earn some respect.
On the other hand, honesty and truth does not always work well with stupid.

[Isildur]

> More than
> likely, the devices were in fact used to illuminate the
> battlefield, and perhaps some of the white phosphorous
> devices mis-fired and scattered their payload a bit too far.

Either way, though, it does deserve to be seriously investigated further, and the U.S. military needs to give a full explanation of what happened.

<p id="signature">

<center><img src=http://pages.nyu.edu/~jc73/misc/FieryAshNazg.gif></center></p>

[Fla Flash]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

he's the best president ever.

<hr></blockquote>

You need to quit drinking or whatever you're doing.

<img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

[JadussD]

> In reply to: he's the best president ever.
>
> You need to quit drinking or whatever you're doing.
>

I think you may have unwittingly been SARCASMED.

[Fla Flash]

Dammit man, I believe (or at least truly hope) you're right.
Just in case, sorry phonymike. Heh.

[phonymike]

shit I guess they really do need sarcasm tags in backroom. I wouldn't put it past our government to use tactics like those though. even if it was maybe some 19 year old soldier playing around and having fun. yes it is fun to some people to kill others.

[Dark Knight Kain]

> shit I guess they really do need sarcasm tags in backroom.

For what it's worth, I knew it was sarcasm <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

[Crazy_MYKL]

> it is not so much love for the administration as it is love for your country *snip*


We pledge allegiance to our flags
Pieces of cloth that cloak our daggers
Material that is immaterial to our humanity
That divides us but never unites us
Patriotism is nationalism is jingoism
As long as we identify by country
We will never know who the other is

[shawn]

> We pledge allegiance to our flags
> Pieces of cloth that cloak our daggers
> Material that is immaterial to our humanity
That divides us but never unites us
> Patriotism is nationalism is jingoism
> As long as we identify by country
> We will never know who the other is

I used to think about that while doing the pledge. I mentioned thinking the pledge was stupid to someone in highschool. We're talking around 1975. The guy wanted to beat the crap out of me. I think some people take this government/country stuff more real than people and the real world around them. It's kind of pitiful actually. They almost think like we're the best and if your not the US you must be evil or communist. I think they are just basically brainwashed and they just don't have a clue. Hell when I was in the military if someone threatened to torture me I'ld say fuck this. Hell I'ld sign anything and tell them anything. I wouldn't care at all either. It's just to much bullshit to me. <img src=smilies/cwm11.gif>

[Dark Knight Kain]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

They almost think like we're the best and if your not the US you must be evil and a terrorist.

<hr></blockquote>

Corrected for this day and age... Luckily it seems the youth of this country is waking up, I remember when the war started and everyone around here was in support of it (Time to admit it, I was too, I actually thought we were doing some good for the Iraqi people at first), but nowadays just about everyone is opposed.

[soniczip]

> I used to think about that while doing the pledge.

I could not agree more with you here.
I ALWAYS think about that while doing the pledge. I HATED the pledge. We're being required to pledge our undying alliance to a flag that hangs in every room, used as a "patriotic" thing, but I really think it's about brainwashing.
I always said under my breath instead of "and justice to all", I said "with liberty and justice to bombers."
I was once approached and ratted out because I said the JROTC at my school were folding up the American flag like a friggin' paper football. I was told "millions of people have died for that flag", and I said "and millions have died at the hands of it".
<img src=smilies/banghead.gif><img src=smilies/banghead.gif>

[Cornellius]

I think it 's the first time you post WITHOUT the :P post icon

[The 9th Sage]

> I always said under my breath instead of "and justice to
> all", I said "with liberty and justice to bombers."

Eh? Say what you want about the US but you can't tell me that people who go around bombing stuff should be held in high esteem by anyone. <img src=smilies/eek13.gif>

[soniczip]

> Eh? Say what you want about the US but you can't tell me
> that people who go around bombing stuff should be held in
> high esteem by anyone.
>

I didn't. I said "liberty and justice," not "worshipping and gifts."
Meaning "have liberty and justice dealt to these suicidal bastards."

[Crazy_MYKL]

Apparently, our leaders think it is easier to take the moral high ground if you bomb it first.

[The 9th Sage]

> I didn't. I said "liberty and justice," not "worshipping and
> gifts."
> Meaning "have liberty and justice dealt to these suicidal
> bastards."

I just misinterpeted. No big deal, heh.

[Mr. Saturn]

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm>US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.</a>

[Fla Flash]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Apparently, our leaders think it is easier to take the moral
high ground if you bomb it first.

<hr></blockquote>

Excellent observation. You may have a cookie.

[soniczip]

According to Wikipedia....

Popular claims about white phosphorus causing deaths in which the bodies are burned but the clothes are not seem contradicted by a description of typical WP injuries in a standard reference work, Emergency War Surgery:
"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal (NOTE: Phosphorus is, in fact, a non-metallic element), which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

Hmm.....

<img src=smilies/mystery.gif>

But I agree. They probably did use them, and if they were used on civilians, then the soldiers will be tried with war crimes, NOT DUBYA. It's not Dubya's fault.
Hopefully the "Blame Bush" card won't come out again. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by soniczip on 11/20/05 02:37 PM.</FONT></P>

[Dark Knight Kain]

> According to Wikipedia....

You really can't trust everything in Wikipedia, I've found plenty of false information. I'm not saying this is false, I'm just saying it could be false.

[mrfreeze]

> But I agree. They probably did use them, and if they were
> used on civilians, then the soldiers will be tried with war
> crimes, NOT DUBYA. It's not Dubya's fault.
> Hopefully the "Blame Bush" card won't come out again.

Not true. If they were used on civilians they would first have to prove it. Then prove they intetnionally used them on civillians. And prove that it didn't just hit civillians while they were using it on insurgents. Thats a lot of shit to prove. Assuming its true, which I'm not cycnical enough yet to go with.

[soniczip]

> You really can't trust everything in Wikipedia, I've found
> plenty of false information.
Like what?
Give me some links.

P.S. the other day I was looking up "NRA" on Wikipedia, and at the end it said "fuck the NRA." I checked 10 Hours later, and found it was gone.

<img src=smilies/mystery.gif>

[GeminiMan]

Because anyone can submit an article to Wikipedia, you should never use it as a source. It makes for a great reference and there's a lot of great information on it, but many articles are biased, exagerated, contain false information, etc.

[Mr. Saturn]

> Because anyone can submit an article to Wikipedia, you
> should never use it as a source. It makes for a great
> reference and there's a lot of great information on it, but
> many articles are biased, exagerated, contain false
> information, etc.
>

Which is exactly why they are marked as such, and if they aren't-- mark or change them yourself.

[GeminiMan]

> Which is exactly why they are marked as such, and if they
> aren't-- mark or change them yourself.
>

Indeed. It just sounded like soniczip wasn't sure as to why Wikipedia isn't always accurate (as DKK stated) and I wanted to make sure soniczip knows why that is.

[SpaceTiger]

> Hopefully the "Blame Bush" card won't come out again.

It doesn't make sense for things like this anyway. There's very little to be gained from the use of these chemical weapons -- I doubt he would have intentionally risked the potency of his propaganda simply to illuminate battlefields.