Chemical Weapons confirmed used in al-falluja [Archive]

View Full Version : Chemical Weapons confirmed used in al-falluja

kingmob

11-10-2005, 12:13 PM

i talked about this months ago and got nothing but shite because i was quoting evil arab propaganda......but guess what this story is true.....just like i said months ago.....
us troops used white phospherous in falluja (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.226404219&par=)

Jeff Olsen

11-10-2005, 05:02 PM

Italian TV is about as reliable as Fox News.

For example: WP is classified as Incendiary, not Chemical.

kingmob

11-10-2005, 05:38 PM

no it is a chemical .....it causes your skin to melt if it touches you

Jeff Olsen

11-10-2005, 06:34 PM

Yes, white phosphorus itself is a chemical but that does not make it a chemical weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon). It's an incendiary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus)!

You really should try some fact-checking before you post but that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?

tigeraholic

11-10-2005, 07:27 PM

just like i said months ago.....

LOL

Ummm King you were claimimg along with your inside source "months ago" that we used GASSING in Fallujah.... WP is not a gas you *****!!! Anything to twist fact to fiction right King?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

My Dad said WP saved a whole lot of American lives in Vietnam, looks like it saved some more...

kingmob

11-10-2005, 10:42 PM

they call it Whiskey Pete in military jargon aka as MK-77........and it doesnt burn clothes ......it cooks you from the inside out after you breathe it in....it is disbursed in big clouds.....heres the video of the aftermath of falluja.....its very graphic dont watch it if you have a weak stomach .....it is a chemical weapon......didnt we invade iraq to save the iraqis from saddam cuz he was using chemical arms on his own people?
falluja the hidden truth (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm)

robinhoodnik

11-11-2005, 02:37 PM

Um okay. I can't sit here all night and watch that thing. When does it get to the good part? I saw a guy stating the obvious. When we went in there, everyone was a combatant. That's exactly how I would view it if I was anything but suicidal. Then he says that everyone with an AK 47 is an enemy or something along those lines. Again, so what? Of course someone with an AK is an enemy, you'd be stupid and probably dead if you saw it any other way. I also saw that his interview was spliced sound bytes. The answers do not match up with the questions properly. Using Vietnam to "set the mood" another popular technique. Use something with a bad association before you get to your point so that it'll be linked in the viewers mind with it. What a bunch of cr@p! I get so violently angry when I see anti - american BS like this. I would like to see us become isolationist for a decade or so and see how well the world gets on without us. These people would be screaming for our help within three years. I'd really like to have a "discussion" with the author of this tripe.

kingmob

11-11-2005, 02:55 PM

tigeraholic

11-11-2005, 06:30 PM

robinhoodnik

11-11-2005, 06:56 PM

did you get to the part where they are interviewing 2 soldiers that fought in falluja?....why dont you watch the whole thing and then make up your mind....i'm sorry but people dont just melt for no reason.....or become cooked from the inside out like a turkey.....this is a true story.....and it isnt anti- american......its anti corrupt amerikan govt. ......those are 2 seperate entities.....especially now that our congressional reps. are bought off lock stock and barrel.....or black mailed
I got through the first interview before I couldn't take anymore. That was all spliced tape King. They can make you say anything when they do an interview like that. They lead you with questions that will get a response to another question they already asked. They then go back to wherever scumbags go to and cut the tape up and stick the answers you gave with the questions that they wanted the answer to go with. Next thing you know you're giving an anti whatever interview on the internet. They could make this guy confess to the Tate, LaBianca killings if they wanted to. You need to go back and listen to how badly that hatchet job was done. I HATE when people try to lead me with BS like those Viet Nam clips to set the appropriate mood for a good old fashioned mind cleansing (Mister Bubble anyone?). That is a very basic,subtle form of thought control King. I can't believe that you didn't catch that one. Again, I'm not trying to rip you King, I really enjoy these conversations with you, but something like this "interview" is just silly.

kingmob

11-11-2005, 07:20 PM

the main fact is that the military bar-b-que'ed iraqis in falluja.....do you not believe this to be true?

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 12:59 AM

it is a chemical weaponOnly in your mind and Italian TV, king.

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 01:33 AM

I don't normally qoute blogs but this one (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/11/indy_uncritical.html) makes a complelling argument:
Indy Uncritically Repeats US 'Chemical Weapons' Claims

It's understandable that the Independent would eagerly repeat claims that "US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah" (headline); it's also understandable that, in its eagerness to present just one side of the story, it would omit easily retrievable information that calls into question the credibility of those providing "proof" that "phosphorus shells were widely deployed in [Fallujah] as a weapon".

In fact, a look at the backgrounds of all sources quoted for the story - which is based on photos, videos and interviews to be broadcast in an Italian television documentary - shows each of them to have affiliations and motives that suggest a clear political agenda, one which is completely unreported by the Indy's Peter Popham. While such affiliations and motives do not of course disprove the claims, it's the duty of a responsible reporter to reveal them, in order that the reader may make a fully informed assessment.

While he apparently doesn't consider it part of the "powerful new evidence" that US forces used "massive quantities of white phosphorus" in the attack on Fallujah last November, Mr. Popham is unable to resist repeating allegations on Shiekh al-Qaradawi's Islam Online site that "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988" (according to unnamed "resistance" sources).

Nowhere else is the term "chemical weapons", quoted in the headline, to be found; nor is any further mention of gas made in the Indy story, which goes on to quote the Pentagon as saying that phosphorus, which is not banned, was used for illumination and not as a weapon.

The Independent quickly moves on to address the "graphic proof":

"But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

"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.'

"'Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.'"

What the Mr. Popham should have mentioned, but didn't, is that the "former American soldier" is one Jeff Englehart, a prominent antiwar activist. Mr. Englehart's website, "Fight to Survive", is in his words "the mouthpiece for a group of soldiers who are fighting in a war they oppose for a president they didn't elect while the petrochemical complex turns the blood of their fallen comrades into oil" - and is decorated with the following charming graphic:

It's worth mentioning that the documentary that constitutes the "new information" includes, along with brief appearances by kidnapped Communist reporter Giuliana Sgrena and Paola Gasparoli (a researcher for "pacifist human rights monitoring group Occupation Watch") an interview with only one other soldier - Garett Reppenhagen, another antiwar activist who was on the Veterans for Peace Impeachment Tour with Cindy Sheehan from the very beginning.

The Independent article continues:

"Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells. [The photographs have been removed from the RAI site.]

"A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: 'A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.'"

It may just be me, but I can't help but think that Independent readers would have been better served had they been informed that Mr. Tareq was not only "a biologist in Fallujah", but also the director of the aforementioned "Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah", an organisation whose focus is to promote war crimes charges against the Americans. (It's not clear whether the centre has any other members - it's quite likely that it consists of Mr. Tareq, two mobile phones, and an email address.)

Incidentally, even if the assertions and imagery of the documentary are correct, the Independent's statements concerning "massive quantities" and "widely deployed" use remain unsubstantiated. While claiming that phosphorus was used, Mr. Englehard gives no indication of how much was involved, or how often. The videos purportedly made at Fallujah on November 8 appear to show only two incidents, both seemingly repeated for visual effect, for a total of about 20 seconds of tape.

So it appears that the phosphorus claims consist entirely of the testimony of one disaffected ex-soldier, some comments and a few seconds of video provided by a cattle biologist, and, from the same source, some photos that could easily have been manipulated. Again, this is not to say that the claims are necessarily false - but it does call into question their completely uncritical reporting by the Independent.

The article goes on:

"The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets."

The documentary, which I've viewed (Windows streaming video, in English), provides no such evidence. What it does report is a statement from the UK Defence Ministry to former MP and Stop the War Coalition featured speaker Alice Mahon - the only other person, apart from those mentioned above, that was interviewed for the film - which is cited as saying (as reported in entirety, my transcript):

"I regret to tell you that I am sincerely sorry that this is not the truth, and that now we must correct it. The USA destroyed their arsenal of napalm used in Vietnam in 2001; but, emerging from new military reports from marines in service in 2003, it shows that MK 77 was used. The incendiary bomb MK 77 does not have the same composition as napalm, but it has the same destructive effect. The Pentagon has informed us that these devices are not generally used in areas where civilians are present."

As you can see, this statement provides no "clinching evidence" - indeed, no evidence whatsoever - that the "new, improved" napalm was ever used at Fallujah. Nor is it evidence of any use on other than military targets. Furthermore, the US (like France) is specifically not bound by the incendiary weapons protocol of the UN convention referred to.

Considering all of the above, one has to wonder about Mr. Popham's suitability as a reporter. Was he simply unaware of, and unable to locate, the affiliations and special interests of the documentary's military interviewees? Did he just not bother? Did he not realise that to call the MK 77 report "clinching evidence" of "napalm" use at Fallujah was a vast exaggeration?

Of course, it's entirely possible that he was very well aware of the facts, choosing not to mention them for fear that the credibility of those quoted - and the impact of his story - would be called into question.

UPDATE: One last thought. I'm by no means a military expert, but shouldn't phosphorus be classified as an incendiary agent, rather than as a chemical one? It seems to me much more like a conventional weapon than does chlorine, nerve gas, or other chemical WMD.

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 01:36 AM

Part 2:
Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims

Predictably, the "US used chemical weapons at Fallujah" story is spreading like phosphorus fire, and the Independent reprises its coverage today.

Interestingly, a careful reading of the latest Indy article (though not in the print edition, where the crucial section has been omitted, apparently due to a production error), especially when combined with a viewing of the RAI video that was the catalyst for the story (and a bit of research), casts grave doubt on the contention that the horrible injuries pictured were in fact the result of phosphorus bombs.

Writing for the Independent, Andrew Buncombe summarises the claim made by the video - which, as we saw yesterday, consisted solely of interviews with, and images produced by, prominent anti-war activists, but no independent scientists or military experts:

"Photographic evidence gathered from the aftermath of the battle suggests that women and children were killed by horrific burns caused by the white phosphorus shells dropped by US forces."

And later:

"Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by treaty."

The certainty of the statement "by the effects of phosphorus shells" is notable.

Yesterday's Independent article, following the lead of the RAI broadcast, made much of the fact that clothing was intact on many of the burned bodies:

"Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

"A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq [in actuality, but as unreported by the Independent, the director of "the Studies Centre of Human Rights"], interviewed for the film, says: 'A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.'"

The implication is that intact clothing constitutes a unique aspect of "appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon", as the lead paragraph put it.

Antiwar activist Jeff Englehart (who is, unbeknownst to Independent readers "the mouthpiece for a group of soldiers who are fighting in a war they oppose for a president they didn't elect while the petrochemical complex turns the blood of their fallen comrades into oil"), the only former soldier interviewed about phosphorus use, agrees:

"It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath the clothes."

Given the considerable stress laid on the non-burning of clothes by both the Independent and the RAI film, it seems odd that this statement, from today's Indy article, is passed over without comment:

"John Pike, director of the Washington-based military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said the smoke caused by the bombs could confuse or blind the enemy or mark a target. 'If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning,' he said."

"If it hits your clothes, it will burn your clothes". Well, that certainly seems to undermine the assertions about intact clothes - it seems unlikely that a victim's face could be completely "caramelised" by the heat, while clothing just inches away was unscathed. Unfortunately, it's (intentionally?) not clear from context in the article whether Mr. Pike is talking about phosphorus, napalm, or both. So I asked him:

Daily Ablution: "Were you referring to white phosphorus or napalm?"

John Pike: "White Phosphorus."

Referring to another quote from yesterday's Independent story, I asked:

Daily Ablution: "Are burns caused by white phosphorus consistent with 'bodies burned but clothes intact'?"

John Pike: "No."

Here's more, from the Emergency War Surgery NATO Handbook:

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, 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."

So ... most cutaneous injury caused by this commonly used weapon results from "the ignition of clothing". This, along with Mr. Pike's observation, casts grave doubt upon a key basis for the assertions that phosphorus was used.

It's not clear just what the images in the RAI video show, but, based on the intact clothing, this evidence suggests that it something other than charred phosphorus victims. While he hasn't seen the video, and so couldn't comment directly about it, Mr. Pike told me that the Indy's description of "clothes largely intact but skin dissolved, caramelised or turned the consistency of leather" sounded like "generic corpses" that had been exposed to the environment for a couple of weeks.

However, one doubts that this aspect of the story will get a great deal of coverage.

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 01:39 AM

Part 3:
Indy Reporter Responds, Phosphorus 'Witness' Discredited, Racism in the Banlieue

One good sign that you've done well in a discussion is the descent by your counterpart into the realm of the ad hominem. If, at the same time, he ignores the substantive, factual points you've raised (e.g., the opinion of his chosen expert that his conclusions are ill-founded), you're left with little choice but to conclude that he's incapable of answering those points.

The Independent's Andrew Buncombe seems to be in precisely that position of impotence. Here's his response to yesterday's post (in full):

Dear Scott,

Thanks for your email. It's nice to hear from you. After your absence following the trip to Wyoming I feared maybe you were going to hole up with your guns, a crate of Budweiser and a copy of the 2nd Amendment and form some sort of militia in the woods with your right-wing buddies.

I'm delighted that you're well. [Did you get to stay in Dick Cheney's holiday home, btw?]

I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree on the white phosphorus thing. You're always quick to try and pull apart those stories you don't like and to question the motives and independence of various sources. You're much slower, however, to question the statements and claims of your government and military commanders on such matters. If reports about civilian deaths in Fallujah are not of concern to you or your readers and do not merit further investigation that's fine; bury your heads simply accept the Pentagon's comment that WP was only used "sparingly".

If I tend to be more skeptical of the official line it's the result of comments such as the following, made by Mr Bush on 17 Mar 2003. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Any way, glad you're well. Best wishes,

Andy Buncombe

While it's disappointing that he fails to address the issue at hand, it is gratifying that Mr. Buncombe concerns himself with my movements to the extent that he does. Thanks, Andy.

Meanwhile, the Stockholm Spectator casts further doubts on the credibility of Jeff Englehart, the only military source for the RAI documentary's "phosphorus as weapon" claims:

"So what exactly was Englehart’s role in that Fallujah assault? When broaching the subject of chemical weapons, the Italian interviewer asks the following question: 'Jeff, it appears that you took part in the attack in Nov. 2004, the most dramatic one. Were any chemical weapons used in Fallujah?' He responds with an authoritative 'yes,' never disputing that assertion that he 'took part' in the 'dramatic attack.'

"But just yesterday, on the left-wing radio program Democracy Now, Englehart backtracked, telling host Amy Goodman that he 'wasn’t actually involved in direct combat [in Falluja].' His contemporaneous blog account notes that he was in Fallujah for 'the last two days of the final assault' as an escort, a mission 'much different from that of the brave and weary infantry and marines involved in the major fighting.'"

There's more, well worth reading, at that site.

So, to sum up:

The primary evidence for the Italian documentary's claims that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against civilian targets in Fallujah consists of photos provided by a campaigner to have the Americans prosecuted for war crimes, and an interview with an antiwar activist who wasn't directly involved in combat.

Concerning the photos, the Independent's chosen weapons expert disputes the key claim - that the intact clothing on the bodies constitutes virtual proof that the victims were incinerated by phosphorus used as weaponry.

It's clear that this story has all it takes to become the latest Received Truth. Look forward to hearing it repeated ad nauseam.

Coverage of the story on the BBC website has been interesting. They initially ran the headline "US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq". Upon reflection (and undoubtedly as a result of reading the Ablution), the editors realised that this was inaccurate, and modified the headline, which now reads:

"US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq"

Quite a different matter.

Some further explanatory (and mitigating) material was added to the story as well. These modifications enraged at least one Italian blog owner, who fired an aggrieved email to the BBC journalist, Tarik Kafala, with accusations that the story was "opinionated" in favour of the Americans. Mr. Kafala responded, in part:

"A little research has indicated that White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, nor is the US a signatory to conventions restricting its use.

"We are doing our best with a complicated report. Our story is not opinionated, it is both accurate and balanced. The Rai report may have at its heart an important truth, but it is factually inaccurate and misleading."

Hmm - that bears repeating. The BBC thinks that the documentary that started all this is "factually inaccurate and misleading".

The aforementioned blogger (and, presumably, weapons expert), a certain Gabriele Zamaprini, sets the BBC straight:

"The statement 'White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon' is in fact incorrect.

"If you had the time to follow this link and click the "Play" under the photo on the right at the bottom of the page, you would learn directly from the voice of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) that 'any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... [is] considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior'."

That's right - any chemical that "causes harm" (gunpowder, CS gas, lemon juice in the eye ...) is a prohibited weapon. Such is the mindset of the righteously outraged.

And finally, to change the subject to another story of interest to Ablution readers, the BBC's Sarah Montague interviewed Jean-Marie Le Pen on yesterday's Today programme (Streaming RAM). M. Le Pen has the shocking temerity to suggest that some of the French rioters don't want to work.

To what depths will this man not stoop?

Jean-Marie Le Pen: "To work you have to want to find a job."

Sarah Montague (incredulously): "Are you saying these people don't want to work?"

Le Pen: "I'm not saying all of them, but lots of them are happy just to live on benefits, or to be part of the underground economy or to deal drugs..."

The idea that the rioters and arsonists don't really, really, want to toil at an honest job is literally inconceivable to Ms. Montague. Later in the conversation, she expresses her incomprehension (while subtly modifying M. Le Pen's stated position - which applies only to "lots" of the rioters):

SM: "What I find difficult understanding is that you truly believe that of the thousands of people who took part in any form in these riots - they are people who do not want jobs, perhaps deal drugs, have expensive cars - you can't be serious in thinking that."

And, indeed, surely he cannot be serious. Only a rabble-rousing racist demagogue would say something like that.

Ms. Montague would surely find this very similar statement, quoted in yesterday's Independent, equally far-fetched and politically suspect:

"What do these kids mean when they say there is no work? Rubbish. Of course there is work, but they just don't want to do it - you offer work on a building site and they say it is too hard."

The vile racist that's responsible for these words of hate is one Samir Bouhel - builder, Tunisian immigrant and resident of the banlieue. What on earth would Ms. Montague make of that?

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 01:41 AM

Part 4:
Last WP Post (I Hope)

There are two issues that I'd like to address concerning the white phosphorus story before (I hope) moving on to other things next week.

Firstly: Many on the opposite side of the spectrum have been pointing with glee to reports that white phosphorus was used as a weapon in Fallujah. This is not in dispute, nor is it prohibited. What is disputed is that it was "used in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilian targets.

I have made no claims that it was not. But the burden of proof is on those claiming that it was - and so far the evidence is unconvincing, for reasons that I've already pointed out.

Secondly, I've been criticised for pointing to the effects of WP itself on clothes versus skin, rather than possible effects of the gas produced by its burning. Mightn't the gas, rather than the actual burning phosphorus itself, be responsible for skin "burned to the bone", "caramelised", "dissolved" and rendered into "leather" (it's odd that the same agent can dissolve something, and also turn it into leather) - all the while leaving clothing intact?

The answer appears, in short, to be a resounding "no".

What follows is the complete transcript of the relevant section of the interview with anti-war activist Jeff Englehart:

"Jeff, it appears that you took part in the attack in November, 2004, the most dramatic one. Were chemical weapons used in Fallujah?"

As the Stockholm Spectator reports, he did not take a direct part in the attack.

"From the US military? Um - yeah absolutely. Uh, white phosphorus. Uh, possibly napalm. It may have or may not have been used, I don't know. I do know that white phosphorus was used, which is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, a chemical weapon."

As has been repeatedly pointed out, by the BBC among many others, WP is not considered a chemical weapon, but an incendiary agent.

From GlobalSecurity.org, the internationally respected weapons experts who were cited in the most recent Independent article on the subject:

"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects."

Returning to the Italian film:

"Is he sure of it?"

"Yes. It happened."

"How can he be certain?"

"Well, it comes across the radio as a general transmission. When it happens like that, you hear it on the radio - we have speakers in our trucks - speakers and then the transmission goes through the speakers so it's audible. And, um, as they'd say, in five mikes [?] we're gonna drop some whiskey pete. Roger, you know - [laughs] commence bombing. I mean, it just comes across the radio, and like when you hear whiskey pete, that's the military slang for..."

Next, 20 seconds of video are shown, in which two incidents are apparently each shown twice. For the producers, this constitutes "proof" that "a chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way".

Mr. Englehart continues, discussing the horrific effects of the gasses emitted by burning phosphorus:

"The gasses from the warhead, the white phosphorus, will disperse in a cloud - and when it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage - burning flesh to the bone. It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes. And this is why protective masks do not help, because it will burn right through the mask, the rubber of the mask, it will manage to get inside your face - if you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxygen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud, but at that point it's just impossible to stop."

"Have you seen the effects of these weapons?"

"Yes. Burned bodies - I mean, they burned children, they burned women, White phosphorus kills indiscriminately - it's a cloud that within most cases to 150 metres it will disperse and it will burn every human being or animal."

This is the totality of Mr. Englehart's discussion of WP. His assessment of the effects of the gasses released by WP flames appears to be exaggerated to a ridiculous extent.

Again, from GlobalSecurity.org:

"The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries.

"Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough. Medical personnel should be prepared to treat potential reactions to military smokes once such smokes have been introduced to the battlefield. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.

"White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. The WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes."

No "burning flesh to the bone", then. No "caramelisation" or "dissolving". No suffocation and "burning from the inside".

"No reported deaths".

Jeff Olsen

11-12-2005, 02:07 AM

If all this WP was used in Falluja, it's amazing that not one Marine was been shown wearing any chemical protective gear. No chemical gloves. Not even a gas mask.

robinhoodnik

11-13-2005, 11:14 AM

They don't need that stuff anymore. They all have personal force field generators. Where do you think all the money from excessive taxation goes? It all goes to black ops silly! ;)

tigeraholic

11-13-2005, 08:46 PM

King give it up on this one you lose...

SFSteveG

11-14-2005, 09:24 AM

King give it up on this one you lose...
If you believe hard enough you can never lose...

kingmob

11-14-2005, 12:41 PM

If all this WP was used in Falluja, it's amazing that not one Marine was been shown wearing any chemical protective gear. No chemical gloves. Not even a gas mask.

the marines werent on the ground when they used wp.....masks and protective gear dont work with wp........wp reacts to air , water, and human skin......if it gets on you it will melt the flesh to the bone.....if you breathe it ....it will cook you from the inside out....its a chemical

kingmob

11-14-2005, 12:42 PM

King give it up on this one you lose...

i lose??? the ? is did the the military crispy fry the iraqis with wp? its pretty apparent that they did

tigeraholic

11-14-2005, 12:56 PM

i lose??? the ? is did the the military crispy fry the iraqis with wp? its pretty apparent that they did

Since the Truth (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html) is never good enough for you take these facts and spin them how you like. You know you will. :rolleyes:

tigeraholic

11-14-2005, 12:58 PM

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?
Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – Al Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

tigeraholic

11-14-2005, 04:20 PM

i lose??? the ? is did the the military crispy fry the iraqis with wp? its pretty apparent that they did

As you see NAPALM not WP is outlawed so what is your point??

SFSteveG

11-14-2005, 04:54 PM

I'm confused. All these problems could just be solved if we gave Palestine back to the Palestinians. Of course then king would call us Nazi's for "gassing" the Jews.

robinhoodnik

11-14-2005, 07:17 PM

Or we (the whole world community) could start pulling our own oil out of the ground and leave the middle eastern region high and dry. Screw 'em, they hate us, we stop giving them our money. Lets see 'em grow corn and make rain in the freakin' desert with no money! :mad:

robinhoodnik

11-14-2005, 09:40 PM

I'm confused. All these problems could just be solved if we gave Palestine back to the Palestinians. Of course then king would call us Nazi's for "gassing" the Jews.
Palestine is just a convenient excuse for these people. Most of the Arab people dont give a rats @ss whether there is a Palestinian homeland or not. They just don't want the Jews there and that's it. The Jews seem to be going out of their way to give the Palestinians a country. They just get cr@pped on every time they try so that they'll hit back and keep the fight going. It's the all or nothing attitude (all of the Jews must go or die) of the religious extremists that needs to go. These idiots are still fighting over the events of 2 and 3 thousand years ago! They hate us (in part) because of the medieval crusades! I have not yet found a history book that places an American army among the crusaders (But I'm sure that Michael Moore is writing it as we speak). Point that out and then it's because we're Christians. How many REAL Christians do you know? I mean Christians that follow EVERY LAST mandate of their religion. Not the Easter, Christmas, Confirmation, etc. etc. sort. Most people nowadays don't ever set foot in a church with the exception of funerals. You are still a Christian to them though. It's the best excuse they got so they'll use it. Giving them Israel and Palestine won't stop them. They'll want more. Maybe they'll decide that since they at one time conquered southern Spain that it should belong to them again. Maybe the Mediteranean Islands? They ran the show in many of them at one time or another. How about we give them that too? Since they're rioting in France, maybe the French should just run away (insert your own French joke here) and find somewhere else to live. I'm sick of appeasing the Arab states. We need to stop messing around with them and put an end to the stupidity once and for all.

kingmob

11-14-2005, 09:44 PM

Since the Truth (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html) is never good enough for you take these facts and spin them how you like. You know you will. :rolleyes:

of course the govt. is going to deny it......

"We categorially deny crispy fying iraqi women and children"
Official white house souse

tigeraholic

11-15-2005, 06:57 AM

of course the govt. is going to deny it......

"We categorially deny crispy fying iraqi women and children"
Official white house souse

LOL the truth is WP is not a banned weopon when will you get it?? Like I said if you (King) do not agree with a fact it is fault, if a rumor or lie backs up your belief than its gold. rederick gets so old.....

kingmob

11-15-2005, 11:47 AM

tigeraholic

11-15-2005, 01:04 PM

robinhoodnik

11-15-2005, 01:37 PM

i dont care if its banned or not.....what im pointing out is that it is wrong.....so are you guys now in favor of xtra crispy iraqi civilians? when wp gets on your skin it will burn to the bone......and yes it is a chemical.....it isnt explosive or concussive.....
No one here is in favor of civilians getting killed. The problem that I have is that the civilians should have removed Saddam themselves. If there is any question of our methods then tough s#*t! If they'd had enough nerve to storm the palaces as a mob and kill the b@st@rd themselves, then we'd not be having this discussion. Don't you get tired of your country getting pimp slapped in the news every day King? We've done nowhere near enough to deserve all the cr@p we're taking from the "world community".

Jeff Olsen

11-15-2005, 09:42 PM

kingmob

11-16-2005, 11:47 AM

Hey war is **** no I do not like the fact that civillians were killed but this is a war..

Also if you remember I had a relative there during the invasion and he said those were not civillians firing at our soldiers in that city.

they are just like you and me.....salesmen, mechanics, farmers, shopkeepers.....all fighting to dispell an evil invader.....if the shoe was on the other foot and some country invaded us you would fight too....

kingmob

11-16-2005, 11:57 AM

No one here is in favor of civilians getting killed. The problem that I have is that the civilians should have removed Saddam themselves. If there is any question of our methods then tough s#*t! If they'd had enough nerve to storm the palaces as a mob and kill the b@st@rd themselves, then we'd not be having this discussion. Don't you get tired of your country getting pimp slapped in the news every day King? We've done nowhere near enough to deserve all the cr@p we're taking from the "world community".

the iraqis had every oppurtunity to take out saddam.....ever see all the pictures of saddam standing in the middle of a cheering crowd all armed with ak's.....saddam was cia from the 50's when he was a young man....he was our bud when he was assasinating communists and inavding iran......this is just never ending war for profit and global hegemony.......war is a racket.....ask halliburton

kingmob

11-16-2005, 11:58 AM

Repeating things ad infinitum doesn't make them true but it does make you look like a paranoid conspiracy nut.

why? because im not marching lockstep with the war effort?

robinhoodnik

11-16-2005, 02:39 PM

the iraqis had every oppurtunity to take out saddam.....ever see all the pictures of saddam standing in the middle of a cheering crowd all armed with ak's.....saddam was cia from the 50's when he was a young man....he was our bud when he was assasinating communists and inavding iran......this is just never ending war for profit and global hegemony.......war is a racket.....ask halliburton
Yeah, I know, Saddam is great, Saddam is good...... So what? you don't think that anyone who dissented would actually be let near him with an AK do you? You ever read anything on how he ran things over there? You never knew if you were going to be turned in and killed for any statement, no matter how out of context it may have been taken. The fact that he was sponsored by us dosen't mean jack at this point. He had TEN years to cut the cr@p and behave himself, instead he played hide the salami with the U.N. and now I'm supposed to feel bad about it? Dredging up another statement you made on chemical weapons, I guess that you forget that poor ol' uncle Saddam regularly used chemical weapons on Iranians, both civilian and military. Happy ol' uncle Saddam didn't stop there either, the Kurds don't agree with you on Saddam's innocence. He gassed them too. He murdered or allowed to be murdered, other muslims of sects. I cannot find one redeeming quality in this guy. How can you defend him?

Jeff Olsen

11-16-2005, 04:29 PM

why? because im not marching lockstep with the war effort?Newsflash king: it is possible to be against this **** fool war without parroting anti-war rhetoric. Just like how it's possible to be against an incompetent figurehead of a commander in chief without parroting anti-government rhetoric. Go back to your perch and I'll feed you a cracker.

williethebasset

12-30-2005, 09:50 PM

I guess that you forget that poor ol' uncle Saddam regularly used chemical weapons on Iranians, both civilian and military. Happy ol' uncle Saddam didn't stop there either, the Kurds don't agree with you on Saddam's innocence. He gassed them too. He murdered or allowed to be murdered, other muslims of sects. I cannot find one redeeming quality in this guy. How can you defend him?

Chemical weapons which we gave him to use against Iran...

williethebasset

12-30-2005, 09:51 PM

dps

12-31-2005, 03:39 PM

Chemical weapons which we gave him to use against Iran...

Only if by "we" you mean "the French", and by "gave" you mean "sold".

robinhoodnik

12-31-2005, 09:31 PM

I'm fairly certain that "we" aren't stupid enough to hand a guy like Saddam anything incriminating.

williethebasset

12-31-2005, 09:49 PM

Only if by "we" you mean "the French", and by "gave" you mean "sold".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

How do you suppose Iraq got those weapons? The US was supplying Iraq with everything they needed for that war to get back at Iran. France had nothing to do with that war.

Any [real] military expert will tell you that the US sold or gave those weapons to Iraq during the war. If Iraq didn't have those weapons they would have lost the war because Iran had strength in numbers.

williethebasset

12-31-2005, 09:51 PM

I'm fairly certain that "we" aren't stupid enough to hand a guy like Saddam anything incriminating.

We were friends with him at the time, so were many Western firms who lost out on Iran's oil when the Alatoyahs came into power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#U.S.-Iraqi_arms_transfers_in_the_war

robinhoodnik

01-01-2006, 09:01 AM

We were friends with him at the time, so were many Western firms who lost out on Iran's oil when the Alatoyahs came into power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#U.S.-Iraqi_arms_transfers_in_the_war
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Doesn't mean we were his buddies means we liked what was happening in Iran less than we liked what happened in Iraq.

kingmob

01-01-2006, 10:18 AM

Yeah, I know, Saddam is great, Saddam is good...... So what? you don't think that anyone who dissented would actually be let near him with an AK do you? You ever read anything on how he ran things over there? You never knew if you were going to be turned in and killed for any statement, no matter how out of context it may have been taken. The fact that he was sponsored by us dosen't mean jack at this point. He had TEN years to cut the cr@p and behave himself, instead he played hide the salami with the U.N. and now I'm supposed to feel bad about it? Dredging up another statement you made on chemical weapons, I guess that you forget that poor ol' uncle Saddam regularly used chemical weapons on Iranians, both civilian and military. Happy ol' uncle Saddam didn't stop there either, the Kurds don't agree with you on Saddam's innocence. He gassed them too. He murdered or allowed to be murdered, other muslims of sects. I cannot find one redeeming quality in this guy. How can you defend him?

whatever.....in just about any govt. if you oppose them....they will kill you.....happens all over.....even in this country......

kingmob

01-01-2006, 10:19 AM

Chemical weapons which we gave him to use against Iran...

exactly.....wb willie

kingmob

01-01-2006, 10:21 AM

Only if by "we" you mean "the French", and by "gave" you mean "sold".

huh....thats funny i didnt donald rumsfeld was french?
rummy envoys with saddam circa 1983 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

kingmob

01-01-2006, 10:24 AM

We were friends with him at the time, so were many Western firms who lost out on Iran's oil when the Alatoyahs came into power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#U.S.-Iraqi_arms_transfers_in_the_war

which we caused them to take power after cia work to overthrow mosadek in the 1950's ...see mosadek<sp> wanted more oil revenue for his people......and wanted to nationalize the oil away from standard oil

tigeraholic

01-01-2006, 12:15 PM

whatever.....in just about any govt. if you oppose them....they will kill you.....happens all over.....even in this country......

LOL

"Happens all over"

When are they coming to your hood to root you out??

Pretty shallow response... Must be runnin out of links from prison planet eh??

robinhoodnik

01-01-2006, 05:24 PM

whatever.....in just about any govt. if you oppose them....they will kill you.....happens all over.....even in this country......
No one has been to my door yet. You're still here, Willie is back. Most of us have had some kind of complaint or gripe that we've put up on these boards. Maybe that's where all the league jumpers go? The government is weeding until it finds the culprits?

kingmob

01-01-2006, 08:11 PM

LOL

"Happens all over"

When are they coming to your hood to root you out??

Pretty shallow response... Must be runnin out of links from prison planet eh??

20-30 yrs. ago if you talked about the nwo, the illuminatti etal. they just killed you......now the genie is out of the bottle......they dont have enough evil minions to come get us all yet.....just test cases.....like randy weaver and his family, the davidians, gordon call, gary webb, bill cooper, and the people they gunned down in nola.....while confiscating there guns....may they all RIP....the problem for the globalists is that we are turning the minions .....and for the stupid cops and merc who want our guns....they can come and take em......and if just 1 in a hundred stand up and resist they will be deciamted

kingmob

01-01-2006, 08:14 PM

No one has been to my door yet. You're still here, Willie is back. Most of us have had some kind of complaint or gripe that we've put up on these boards. Maybe that's where all the league jumpers go? The government is weeding until it finds the culprits?

they have red and blue lists....why do you think they have no fly lists.....nsa wiretaps on everything.....do you have onstar in your car? your cellphone can be tracked in realtime.....they can get whoever they want too......theres lotsa people rotting in jail who are political prisoners.....they cant get us all.....sides all of us small fry....they dont care if we exist one way or the other....

williethebasset

01-01-2006, 09:37 PM

they have red and blue lists....why do you think they have no fly lists.....nsa wiretaps on everything.....do you have onstar in your car? your cellphone can be tracked in realtime.....they can get whoever they want too......theres lotsa people rotting in jail who are political prisoners.....they cant get us all.....sides all of us small fry....they dont care if we exist one way or the other....

I no longer have a cellphone, and for my next car I want a 1970s Cadillac, so that it can't be disabled with EMP weapons. I read an article somewhere that police were using directed EMPs at cars during a chase to shut the engine down. That only works with a car that has fuel injectors or a computer. It won't work in the car I want.

http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/mn_cad_lasalle/cady7501.JPG
1975 Cadillac ElDorado coupe with a 502 (8.2 liter) V-8. The biggest engine ever in a production vehicle.

dps

01-01-2006, 10:43 PM

.

http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/mn_cad_lasalle/cady7501.JPG
1975 Cadillac ElDorado coupe with a 502 (8.2 liter) V-8. The biggest engine ever in a production vehicle.

Uh, no, don't think so.

kingmob

01-01-2006, 11:43 PM

I no longer have a cellphone, and for my next car I want a 1970s Cadillac, so that it can't be disabled with EMP weapons. I read an article somewhere that police were using directed EMPs at cars during a chase to shut the engine down. That only works with a car that has fuel injectors or a computer. It won't work in the car I want.

http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/mn_cad_lasalle/cady7501.JPG
1975 Cadillac ElDorado coupe with a 502 (8.2 liter) V-8. The biggest engine ever in a production vehicle.

yeah thats true....and it doesnt habe a black box in it either....

robinhoodnik

01-02-2006, 01:17 AM

Maybe he's referring to the 502 not being true. Chrysler made a 502, but only for one year. They did continue producing them for marine applications after the initial run.

williethebasset

01-02-2006, 09:15 AM

Maybe he's referring to the 502 not being true. Chrysler made a 502, but only for one year. They did continue producing them for marine applications after the initial run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Eldorado#1971

I made a mistke about the model year though, it was in a 1971, not a 1975.

I would only use it as a summer/show car though, because of the amount of gas it uses. My friend has a 1977 Dodge Aspen with a different engine than prodution models had. I don't remeber the engine, but he drove it to work one day, which is 20 miles from where he lives, and he used 1/2 a gas tank. He said when he drives it hard, he can watch the gas tank needle move down. When I was in it, he floored it and I got some whiplash.

dps

01-02-2006, 11:45 PM

Maybe he's referring to the 502 not being true. Chrysler made a 502, but only for one year. They did continue producing them for marine applications after the initial run.

The 502 being the biggest engine ever in a production automobile is what I was refering to. It was the largest V-8 engine ever in a production car. There have been bigger engines that weren't V-8's.

robinhoodnik

01-03-2006, 12:13 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Eldorado#1971

I made a mistke about the model year though, it was in a 1971, not a 1975.

I would only use it as a summer/show car though, because of the amount of gas it uses. My friend has a 1977 Dodge Aspen with a different engine than prodution models had. I don't remeber the engine, but he drove it to work one day, which is 20 miles from where he lives, and he used 1/2 a gas tank. He said when he drives it hard, he can watch the gas tank needle move down. When I was in it, he floored it and I got some whiplash.
Plymouth Volare was the same car. There used to be one around here that was all hopped up too. I've currently got an '87 Ford six wheel F350 with a 460 that does the same thing. Push the gas pedal and the needle moves. I put a plow on it, maybe it'll pay for it's own gas. :rolleyes: