Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
Wikipedia has some links and information about the documentary film, which argues that the US is guilty of war crimes in Fallujah. Among other human rights abuses, it shows our use of chemical weapons of mass destruction. An English version is downloadable at http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp.
The film documents the use of chemical weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces.
Interviews with ex American military personnel who were involved in the Fallujah offensive back up the case for the use of chemical weapons by the United States, while reporters who were stationed in Iraq discuss the American government’s attempts to suppress the news by covert means.
Rhandi Rhodes was talking on Air America yesterday about bodies found that were melted down to their skeletons – but their clothes were still on them.
Don’t forget, we’re also using “depleted” uranium – a lovely thing for all concerned, radiation.
Tell me how the murders of thousands of women and children in Fallujah helped anything at all. We’ve still killed more than the insurgents. Explain it all to the people of Iraq. Explain it to me. Tell me how any of this was necessary, and how we’re the good guys. Tell me how the sadistic torture and rape of children and adults in overseas prisons is necessary, and what great information we get from those practices. Tell me why this administration was so concerned with hiding documentation. Tell me again why anyone would trust this President.
12 thoughts on “Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre”
If the bodies are burned but they have unburned clothing on, then the photo staged. The suggestion that something burned one thing in contact with an other but not the other is absurd on its face.
DU is only a health risk if you come into contact with a recenly destroyed target of a DU round or if the target had DU in its composition such as our armor. The rule if thumb is stary away from burning vehicles.
From Electronic Iraq:
Seems to me that maybe they mixed the new napalm with phosphorus – Willy Pete, also known as Whiskey Pete.
That sounds like a good description of employed WP munitions and no one denies they were used in Fallujah.
WHat is incorrect is to state or imply that WP is a chemical weapon or a WMD.
Napalm is an entirely differnt substance. The MK77 is similar, but acutal Napalm we don’t have anymore. The MK77 is an air dropped munition, a bomb. WP is employed either in mortar or artillery shells or in a hand grenade.
We have nothign that “melts” bodies. WP burns.
WP is not also known as Whiskey Pete, Whisky Papa, yes.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of the actual footage, then. Have you seen the documentary footage? How would you explain those images?
One of the parts that I viewed looked like phosophorus of some kind was used to light the sky, but went off low with multiple trails that then clearly hit the buildings. It is legal to use for illumination, but not against civilians.
So you don’t feel that the WP was mixed with the sticky gel to stick to human flesh? Again – how do you explain the condition of the casualties (ie the murdered women and children we specifically targeted knowing that most of the intended targets had already left the city).
There is an Artillery Officer that has left a comment on the blog at Protein Wisdom. He has seen teh documetnary and I have not. He says (I think this is the same thing you are refering to) that those scenes are the backblast ov various rocket munitions.
Any munition used deliberately against civilians is illegal. It’s the intent that makes the difference.
Mixing WP with most gels would be counter-productive. Phosphorus is stored in kerosene or glycerine in order to keep it inert. It ignites on contact with oxygen. Mixing it with somethig oxygenated (including water) would cause it to burn. Mixing it with the flamable kerosene or even subsances like glycerine which would make it sticky but is not itself flamable, would keep it from igniting.
You alleged deliberate targeting of civilians. That’s serious. If it’s true that would be illegal. What evidence has persuaded you of the truth of this? I haven’t come across anything that would convince me, much less stand up in a court.
I was reporting an allegation, not alleging. However, what it looks like to me is that explosions went off too close to the ground – trails created further explosions on the ground. I care less about “motivation” than what actually might have happened.
I defer to your expertise on weaponry – I don’t know anything about these things. However, I do recommend that you watch the film and form your own opinion based on the visuals. That’s why I linked to it.
Motive is what has to be proven if one wished to prove a case for a War Crime.
I’m downloading the video now so I can stop, start and freeze as I like.
Also check out the Daily Kos on U.S. admission of using white phosphorus as a weapon (shake and bake):
March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled “The Fight for Fallujah”:
Testimony about the use of these “shake and bake” techniques of WP usage are detailed in an account by an embedded Journalist regarding the April 2004 attacks on Fallujah by the Marines:
What do you think this says that supports your contention? Kos is irrelevant; no denying that WP was used and it is a weapon, so using it as a weapon is no great stretch.
The instructive phrase in the anecdote above is this: “Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map….”
Coordinates were received from someone with eyes on the target; a Forward Observer. Cpl Bogert plotted the coordinates on the map both as verification of his instructions and for accountability purposes after action.
Nothing indiscriminate about what is described; mortars and artilelry are indirect fre weapons. The tube crews almost never actually see what they are shooting at. It’s the FOs that keep the process aboveboard.
After watchig the video, I have to agree with teh artillery officer I mentioned earlier. The night pictures showing a burst in the sky of sparks trailing streamers of smoke are rocket backblast from heliborne launchers.
In the entire video there is no image that I can identify as WP.
Go here to see daylight photos of WP munitions detonations. http://www.coralstrand.karoo.net/contents/f_gallery.htm
Interesting. Well, I see that the issue made network news last night. I feel confident that it will be questioned and investigated. If we are using WP and any new napalm-like chemical weapons, that has to be known. If not, well, I still think that we need to question the reason for razing Fallujah.
There’s no “if” to the question. We have used Mk-77s which are napalm-like. We have used WP. No doubts.
There’s just nothing presently legaly wrong with doing so. The answer to this, if you feel so motivated (I do not) is to change the law.
By all means, question Fallujah and the Iraq campaign and the whole war on terror. It’s the only way to keep the process lawful. It’s a part of my function as a Soldier and especially as an NCO to ask these questions in the moment. It’s your duty as a citizen to question those decisions as well.