Wednesday, November 09, 2005

US Troops using Chemical Warfare in Falluja

Watch this video posted by Italian state television. This is quite disturbing if this is true. Hey Kull, can you provide feedback as to the legitimacy of this website and TV station?
Click Here

Lefty Metalhead:

How low can our country go? Will the neocons be able to defend this? They will surely try. Next thing we know, they'll be framing this as "fighting fire with fire", "these things happen in war", "what white phosphorous? The liberal media is making this up!". Then we'll hear blundering idiots such as O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin (that nasty guttersnipe), Coulter, et al saying that criticizing our military for such a "justified" action will only endanger our troops, hence making us anti-(enter either of the following here: American, freedom, democracy, etc). Let us fix this quagmire in 2006 and 2008.

18 comments:

Kull said...

I can do much better, but right now I am off to the gym, so you'll have to wait some hours...ok?

;-)

See you later,

Kull.

Anonymous said...

You're kidding right? White Phosphorous isn't a chemical agent.

White Phosphorous is used for two things 1)Generates smoke and 2) creates a lot of light.

Both of these make using it as a weapon extremely unreliable as you can no longe verify the target has been taken out.

Finally White phosphorous does it's thing via combustion, not some other effect. It's generally lumped in with gun powder and other combustible agents.

I haven't seen the video yet. I'm sure it's possible that some targets have been directly hit by White phosphorous, but I can't imagine the US military using it as a weapon. Not because it's inhumane or anything, but because it's ineffective.

BigNewsDay said...

I do not know much about white phosphorous, but a lot of the pages I've read state that what is being used by the military is metling the skin off of peoples bodies. The video does show instances of this. I'm also not to sure about the source of this video, so I'm patientlt waiting for our brother Kull to offer some input into the media that released the video. But in the meantime I'll continue to research the effect of white phosphorous, which IS a chemical agent.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough, I'll concede that it is a chemical agent, however, it is generally classified as a non-lethal chemical agent and is not normally used as a chemical weapon.

From what I've read of the events (as purported by RAI and Jeff Englehart) the effects that they saw don't match those of white phosphoros in the slightest. WP (as best as I can find) does not unleash a cloud of death that melts the flesh from humans.

Lefty Metalhead said...

To Anonymous:

I think the use of white phosphorous as a weapon being unreliable is irrelevant. Perhaps it doesn't kill the numbers of people a conventional bomb would, but it is suggested that the chemical could have been used on Iraqi civilians. I could see the military throwing the chemical at civilians (perhaps not maliciously but with confusion between insurgent and civilian) with the intent to do some harm. The military's current track record indicates that it doesn't always act properly. There is evidence to support the allegations of chemical agent use, and it warrants some sort of investigation.

The Bush administration is losing grip. I hate to bring partisan politics into this issue, but the current administration, after years of efficiency, is crumbling under incompetence. We know the right hates government. Why should we expect them to govern properly?

Lefty Metalhead said...

Anonymous:

I like the way you divulge your knowledge of current events and politics. We need someone on here that will challenge our arguments. If you would like to, send me a message (alexortiz83@msn.com) and I'll be glad to invite you as a contributor to this blog.

BigNewsDay said...

Here is a link that offers more information into the uses and dangers of White Phosphorous. This is a subject that I would love to learn more about, so any information that anybody can add, is greatly appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

Anonymous said...

To Lefty Metalhead

As for the Bush admin losing it’s grip. I’m not sure it ever had one. Bush had the potential to make some serious changes in the US. Unfortunately (my point of view – you are more than welcome to disagree) he pissed it away by appointing incompetent people to represent him and/or left idiots in charge from Clintons term.

As someone who is definitely on the right hand side of the aisle I disagree with the contention that we hate government. I believe in more the power of the individual states as opposed to the federal government. I’ll caveat this with the statement that the local/state laws should not contradict the Constitution.

To Bignewsday

Here’s a couple of links I enjoyed

http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html

Anonymous said...

To Left Metalhead

I'll shoot you an e-mail this evening when I get home.

Kull said...

I am here,

well let's clear doubts on the W.P. agent,
the international conventions on war do ALLOW the use of White Phosphorous only as a light source...WP CAN BECOME A VERY GRISLY chemical agent if used in warheads (as it's been proven that u.s. forces did aganist Falludjah) since it sticks on the flesh, penetrates through pores and makes your tissues combust from the INSIDE! The most shocking feature is that it won't consume clothing or non living material so you'll find heaps of sizzling flesh surrounded by their clothing.
The use of W.P. and of a new generation of fuel-air explosive has been proved by the italian RAI-NEWS-24 (www.rainews24.it) a branch of the state television (so no bunch of pot smoking bolsheviks) thanks to the witnessing of former u.s. servicemen (Jeff Englehart foremost) disgusted by the scenes they saw.
Their stories have been cross-checked with the witnessing of Mohammed Tariq Alderaji (hope to have written it correctly) who saw civilians in Falludjah consumed by the W.P. clouds'.
House of Commons' member Alice Mahaon pressured Blair and his ministers to know whether the British forces knew of these war crimes and, after months of insincere denials, her efforts brought the british government to admit it knew that the u.s. troops used 'incendiary chemical agents' aganist Falludjah. (on June 2005, after months of stubborn and insincere denials).
What does 'incendiary chemical agents mean'?
More on this issue coming soon.

Kull said...

I am here,

well let's clear doubts on the W.P. agent,
the international conventions on war do ALLOW the use of White Phosphorous only as a light source...WP CAN BECOME A VERY GRISLY chemical agent if used in warheads (as it's been proven that u.s. forces did aganist Falludjah) since it sticks on the flesh, penetrates through pores and makes your tissues combust from the INSIDE! The most shocking feature is that it won't consume clothing or non living material so you'll find heaps of sizzling flesh surrounded by their clothing.
The use of W.P. and of a new generation of fuel-air explosive has been proved by the italian RAI-NEWS-24 (www.rainews24.it) a branch of the state television (so no bunch of pot smoking bolsheviks) thanks to the witnessing of former u.s. servicemen (Jeff Englehart foremost) disgusted by the scenes they saw.
Their stories have been cross-checked with the witnessing of Mohammed Tariq Alderaji (hope to have written it correctly) who saw civilians in Falludjah consumed by the W.P. clouds'.
House of Commons' member Alice Mahaon pressured Blair and his ministers to know whether the British forces knew of these war crimes and, after months of insincere denials, her efforts brought the british government to admit it knew that the u.s. troops used 'incendiary chemical agents' aganist Falludjah. (on June 2005, after months of stubborn and insincere denials).
What does 'incendiary chemical agents mean'?
More on this issue coming soon.

Kull said...

ok, I forgot to check and wrote the stuff about the months of insincere denials twice,

heck...

Lefty Metalhead said...

Anonymous:

Thanks for responding again. I apologize for making such a snarky accusation about conservatives regarding the federal government. I sincerely wrote such a comment to engage you. Thanks for being respectful and polite. Can't wait to have you on board!

After thinking about your opinion on the Bush administration's grip, I can see what you're saying. However, coming from the left, it is difficult to regard the Bush administration in that way for a couple of reasons. First, the Dems' recent election losses have scarred us significantly, invoking a sense of helplessness in the face of a unified Republican party. Secondly, the Bush agenda was implemented successfully during his first term, at least in terms of tax cuts and military spending. In this term, however, approval ratings are dropping, he's basically a lame duck regarding his agenda, the Iraq war isn't going so well, and the economy, despite "experts" saying it's strong, isn't providing many new jobs. Bush almost fell from grace with conservatives after the Miers nomination, but redeemed himself with Alito. Nevertheless, scandals and disasters have shown Bush administration incompetence.

Thanks again for your insights.

Anonymous said...

I've watched the video now. After watching (it is rather gruesome) I did some more looking around. The best thing I have found may be found here:

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html

The most interesting thing I get from this is that it appears that WP burns the clothing those targeted and that most of the burns on the body result from the clothing burning. That clearly wasn't the case in this video.

While I am not claiming that WP was not used in Fallujah, I am claiming that WP does not appear to be the cause of the burns on the victims that were shown. As to what caused the burns, you're guess is as good as mine, but I sincerely doubt it to have been from WP.

Martyr said...

To lefty

From - Anonymous

It’s easy to make snarky comments, I do it from time to time myself – no harm, no foul.

The Dems should be scared by what happened in 2004. Unfortunately for them, I see the same thing happening in 2008. The Dems did a poor job getting a coherent message out to the people, and I think that Dean is going to make things worse for them. Unless something changes within the Democratic Party I don’t see them taking the Senate back anytime soon. I make this claim hoping that the Republicans will start acting more like conservatives and start cutting spending and acting like conservatives, otherwise it’s anybodies guess where we will be in two years.

Most presidents seem to have a better go of it their first term in office, just look at Reagan and Clinton. I think Bushes approval ratings are dropping because he is acting more like I would have expected John Kerry to act had he won. He’s done absolutely nothing to protect our borders, that idiot Mineta is still running the TSA and he keeps appointing idiots to high level positions.

I wouldn’t say the economy is strong, but I don’t think it is as weak as many on the left make it out to be. If Bush would cut some of the spending from the federal budget we may actually see some nice economic growth.

I’ll state yet again, Miers was an unmitigated disaster of an appointment. I personally don’t care if she is friends with Bush or not, I want the best person for the job. I never got the feeling that she was qualified for the position. The fact that Harry Reid liked her scared the hell out of me.

As for scandals showing Bush admin incompetence, I’m not sure that is the case. Clinton had one of the most scandal ridden presidencies I’ve ever heard of (except for Harding), but it never seemed to stick to Bill himself. Bush just isn’t as good at wiggling out of these bad situations as Clinton was/is.

Lefty Metalhead said...

To Anonymous:

Thanks for the reply. I see your points on the various subjects I touched upon. However, I think your measure of future Democrat performance is faulty. I think you assume that the Republicans will reverse their apparent implosion happening at this moment. There is a division between supply-side GOP and traditional fiscal conservatives. Bush has screwed the latter. I think the religious right will ultimately damage the GOP with its radical views on cultural issues. You also assume that the Democrats won't be able to formulate a unified message. I know Dean can get crazy sometimes, but let us not forget that Clinton won with a message of reform (although the case could be made that ALL challengers run on this premise). We'll have to wait and see...

Have you gotten a chance to email me yet? It would be a pleasure to have you contribute on here, especially since you seem to be a fiscal conservative. Don't forget dude!

Anonymous said...

You are correct as I assuming that the Repubs will correct their recent implosion. I can only hope that we are able to return back to our conservative roots (fiscally at least).

I’m not sure I agree with your position on the religious right damaging the GOP. They’ve got some decent ideas and some bad ideas, it really depends on whether or not they go off the deep end with their views.

I think the Dems will be able to come out with a unified message to the public at large, but will their message be one rooted in classic Democratic values or will it be the standard race baiting drivel that has been the hallmark of the Democratic party the past few years? The largest problem facing the Dems today (as I see it), is that they are the party of no ideas. They are very good at pointing fingers and complaining loudly, but don’t seem capable of much else…

I fired an e-mail to you last night from my osgiliath e-mail addy. I’ll shoot you one again in a minute.

Lefty Metalhead said...

I think you're right about the Dems needed ideas, FAST! However, the GOP, while having many that worked before, haven't pushed any new ideas that have resonated with the American public (ie Social Security). The 2006 midterms will be a nice battle of ideas for both sides, namely a battle to gauge how Americans feel and apply ideas to that sentiment.