Following a disturbing report on EuroNews that showed civilian Iraqi’s with their skin mysteriously burned off, the United States Army has changed their story on whether or not they used white phosphorus during last year’s offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.
Originally the US Army vehemently denied that it ever used the hideous and indiscriminate weapon which some have described as a chemical weapon. However a spokesman for the US army was quick to point out that the United States did not sign the UN accord that banned the use of chemical weapons like white phosphorus.
When asked why the US army had previously denied that it had used white phosphorus Col Venable said that the previous statement was based on “poor information”. He also defended its use stating that Washington had never signed any accord banning the use of such a weapon and furthermore the weapon was not used primarily to kill but rather as “obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases”.
According to the BBC new website white phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone’s body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Recent pictures in the press of Iraqi civilians, including very young children, with their flesh burned off have angered many an lead to hard questions being put to the US military who now claim they did not lie but simply made a mistake with “poor information.”
Italian RAI24 news aired a documentary last week that said the US Army used white phosphorous in a “massive and indiscriminate way” during the Falluja offensive, and furthermore did so in a way that could not and did not avoid civilian casualties. The documentary quoted ex-marine Jeff Englehart as saying he saw the bodies of burned children and women after the bombardments. “Burned bodies. Burned children and burned women. White phosphorous kills indiscriminately. It’s a cloud that, within … 150 metres of impact, will disperse and will burn every human being or animal.”
—
Italian TV report on US use of chemical weapons
US U-turn on Iraq ‘chemical’ weapon use
Aljazeera take on the news
GlobalSecurity.org reports
White phosphorus: weapon on the edge
Wrote the following comment on Nov 16, 2005 at 11:57 am
Why am I candidly not surprised? I think the media have in some ways oversensationalized the aspects of this war but have also uncovered some atrocities that would typically have been swept under the rug.
We can’t have phosphorus in our washing detergent (environmental hazard) but we can use it to kill babies.
Now that’s the American (Military’s) Way.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 16, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Patti, You know it’s not so much the fact they used it, it’s the fact they lied about the use until the world was looking at pictures of women and children with their skin burned off. They still insist, despite overwhelming evidence, that no civilians were harmed. War is a dirty game and Washington need to allow the American people to face up to the reality that this war wasn’t won on May 12th 2003, and that many many many innocent Iraqis along with American soldiers have died and will continues to do so. The idea that this war includes high tech precision targeting of the bad guys is one that is palatable to the watching public, and one that is becoming more and more difficult to present.
I’m not for one moment saying that you Patti, are under any illusion that this is a clean war. I am merely saying that it is being presented as such, and that lie is becoming harder and harder to peddle. With the majority of Americans now against the war I wonder what on earth the President is planning to handle the whole terrible affair.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 16, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Just curious, what would you consider to be acceptable weapons that the US military may use?
Wrote the following comment on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:22 am
Doesn’t refusing to sign the accord banning chemical weapons show some kind of intent to use them? At very least keeping the door open to use them. I just hope Americans are getting sick of hearing about inaccuarate information and poor intelligence.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 18, 2005 at 3:57 am
American here….what really frustrates me about Bush is his complete inability to back down or admit defeat. It’s a terrible habit for anyone, let alone our president. Sadly, that defect pervades his entire administration. These lies don’t help a thing. I don’t remember who said it, but the first casualty of war is truth. Wars are never clean, but obvious lies don’t have to be added to the mix. Now, just in case I sound downright unpatriotic saying all this, I’ll admit that I helped vote Bush into office. ‘Nuff said.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 18, 2005 at 2:04 pm
The other day i was showing some friends the Bush speech writer movie (I linked to it a here a couple of days back). It led to a very serious conversation about America, the lies, the trustworthiness of a President so colored by this whole mess, and oddly enough Clinton too.
Although Bushists won’t enjoy hearing this, President Clinton was far and away the most popular INTERNATIONAL President you have had in recent years. He was liked around the world and still is. The general view of the people I was talking with yesterday was that, yeah so he did cheat on his wife, but credit to her for staying with him, and credit to them both for being strong and committed enough to get through it. Also a blow job under the desk seems like small potatoes when compared to not only the way that Bush ‘won’ his first election, but then the things Bush seems to have ballsed up in his term so far.
Bush would appear to have single handedly made the entire world very dubious about all things American. I personally feel that a lot as I love America and feel very VERY sad to see a country I so very much love so utterly misrepresented by a trigger happy pillock who thinks that he can “rid the world of evil” – Dah!?
One final thing I’d also add is that Houstoncreed saying he didn’t want to appear unpatriotic is an interesting slant on that word. Patriotism is a love for ones country, not a love for ones leader. I love England, but I am fed up with (along with the rest of the country) with watching Blair (Bush’s lapdog) promote the sense that we should all live in fear while he proposes more and more draconian laws that will ‘keep us safe.’
Wrote the following comment on Nov 18, 2005 at 2:46 pm
LOL! Your class mates aren’t as well travelled as you though I’d bet. While I can understand why certain Bushits can swagger around, I’ve yet to meet well travelled Americans who feel Bush is a top President doing a great job.
What upsets me the most about certain people who love Bush is their blindness at the fact that a President who is at war on three and a bit fronts (and losing all of them) needs to carry the support of the watching world. Without that then America can expect to accumulate more detractors and more enemies.
I just wonder how Americans will react when someone wearing a dynamite suit blows himself up in the New York subway system or a Starbucks. Will Americans just write blank checks for more bombs on brown people or will people start to ponder why it happened? What would be more terrifying of course would be if it wasn’t a ‘brown person’, and instead was a white American, another John Walker Lindt.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 18, 2005 at 8:10 am
I agree with houstoncreed, but I voted against him. It really ticks me off that Bush and his cronies are all a bunch of crooks. College Station, TX is a very conservative pro-Bush town and living here, you wouldn’t think his approval ratings are plummeting. He’s making us look bad to the whole country. I say if he gave the go-ahead on using white phosphorus (which I would consider to be a WMD) and then lied about it, we need to impeach him the way Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. (I love Clinton anyway, though!)
Wrote the following comment on Nov 18, 2005 at 2:35 pm
a major problem right now is that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us,” and anyone who doesn’t love Bush is painted as unpatriotic. i’ve been told time and time again by my classmates to move to France if I don’t like Bush. I’m considering it.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 19, 2005 at 4:43 am
My comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. I didn’t want Bush and his boys to come gunning for me.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:31 pm
No, we don’t do thanksgiving here, and it is an American thing I have yet to experience in America.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 19, 2005 at 6:54 am
Hey Simon, I see once again the political pot continues to be stirred on your site. I’ve taken a hiatus from the politcal scene. Things have been crazy with work and all. Hope things are going good for you. Not to sound like an ignorant Yank, but do you all celebrate Thanksgiving? Either way hope the winter months are special!
Wrote the following comment on Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27 am
Yep, no bugger there will be celebrating anything.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 20, 2005 at 9:46 am
My roommate’s girlfriend is going to london for Thanksgiving. That’s gonna be pretty weird, I think.
Wrote the following comment on Nov 20, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I am so happy to see you and Zach finding something in common (smiley here).Fill up the pot…I’ll be happy to stir.