funny ringtones

I don't understand what the fuss is!

Ducking stools and stocks have been around forever! Cutting out tongues and quartering people has been a normal punishment for ten generations before us! And *of course* the manor lord gets to sample the young girls first. We've *always* done that!

The real problem is heretics, not the instruments of confession.

And I'm one of those radical Puritans! If *I* say it's so, it must be true.

I don't understand the fuss!? WP has been around FOREVER, and has been used at great lengths in WW2, Korea, Vietnam-and it was never a problem.

The residents of Fallujah, women and children alike, were warned repeatedly to get out or bad things will happen. Sadly, they didn't heed the warning, and died as innocent victims. As for the insurgents-I have a hard time feeling sorrow for them after having seen them behead innocent women and men and *record* their heinous misdeeds as proof of their animosity.

WP is not a problem-insurgents are.

And I'm a dyed in the wool blue lefty!

If it shake bake strategy worked why insurgency is not over.

WTangel, things have changed since VN, in part because of what happened in VN.

The rest of the developed world was appalled by US use of cluster bombs, defoliants, and incendiaries like napalm. The issue of suffering may have been part of it, but the main issue has always been whether they are sufficiently discriminating not to qualify as area weapons, which are definitely banned. Cluster munitions are particularly bad in this regard, because there are always residual submunitions that for years after the battle is over maim civilians, especially children. White phosphorus is a complex issue. But a country that wants to be a world leader has to notice where world opinion is going lest it find itself alone, a pariah.

Some months ago, right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh were ridiculing the events at Abu Ghraib as fraternity pranks. Today, "[...A] former senior US state department official said he [Cheney] could be guilty of a war crime over the abuse of prisoners.Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney...Asked whether the vice-president was guilty of a war crime, Mr Wilkerson replied: 'Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well.' In the context of other remarks it appeared he was using the word 'terror' to apply to the systematic abuse of prisoners.'" (www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1653936,00.html)

The moment is now for the US military to demonstrate that it does not use incendiary weapons as area weapons, That moment is slipping away.

You can tell people "don't engage." But the issue is engaged. The more the US military conceals what is going on in the riverine campaign, the more the world will assume it is guilty of every civilian death that happens.

A few years from now, there may be another senior official mentioning the word "war crimes" in the context of Fallujah.

You want that? Or are we willing to have some truth now?

Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

I was an Army Field Artillery officer assigned to a firing battery in the Vietnam War (remember that one?). "Willy Pete" was just one munition option we had when employing artillery. Primarily in my division (101st Airborne) it was used as a preliminary marking round (WP 200 meter height of burst), prior to shooting high explosive (HE) ammunition mission, to insure poor maps and observer orientation didn't cause a "friendly fire" incident. We also would us WP in missions against personnel without compuction if the situation called for it. What is the difference between blowing someone up or burning them to death with WP? Actually, any method of killing is inhumane and dead is dead. The WP debate seems to be a foreign government attempt to demonize America, in my humble opinion. Don't engage on this one.

I was an Army Field Artillery officer assigned to a firing battery in the Vietnam War (remember that one?). "Willy Pete" was just one munition option we had when employing artillery. Primarily in my division (101st Airborne) it was used as a preliminary marking round (WP 200 meter height of burst), prior to shooting high explosive (HE) ammunition to insure poor maps and observer orientation didn't cause a "friendly fire" incident. We also would us WP in missions against personnel without compuction if the situation called for it. What is the difference between blowing someone up or burning them to death with WP? Actually, any method of killing is inhumane and dead is dead. The WP debate seems to be a foreign government attempt to demonize America, in my humble opinion. Don't engage on this one.

Thanks for the floor, Ray.

I take it that means you are unable to refute what I have said and so you need to deflect off onto whether a guest on a radio program is worthy of being heard or not.

Did you notice that another guest on the show was Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a spokesman for the Pentagon, who vigorously contested Engelhardt's claims? (www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232&mode=thread&tid=25).

As I understand it, Boylan unfortunately won't come back on the show because apparently he was a bit too vigorous in contesting the claims and would have to take some of what he said back. That's a shame, but it's the Pentagon's choice to abandon the battlefield of ideas.

It's correct that Tony Lagouranis is a specialist, not a sergeant. Blame my error on old eyes, not on a lack of knowledge. But your description is as flawed as mine. Lagouranis is a graduate of St. John's College, known for its Great Books Program. (www.freenewmexican.com/news/35266.html) He passed through training at Ft. Huachuca. He also appeared on PBS. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/lagouranis.html). He's an intelligent, perceptive, thoughtful man.

Dismissing him does not pass muster. Whatever his experience, he seems to have a conscience. That's a qualification that many men working interrogations seem to lack.

I am not taking anyone's word, not Engelhardt's, not Lagouranis's, not Boylan's on figuring out what happened in Fallujah. I am assembling pieces into a coherent picture. Engelhardt's main contribution is that he says he heard calls for the deployment of white phosphorus. He's not an expert on international law. Neither is Lagouranis. But he saw burned bodies, including children.

And when one puts together pieces, one is faced with the question of whether to believe the Pentagon, which has admitted it lied, or whether to question the Pentagon.

Notice, I didn't pose the false choice of believing the Pentagon vs. believing Engelhardt or Lagouranis or Jamail or many other witnesses. But the Pentagon categorically denied it used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon, and now it wants us to believe a new story (that it used it lawfully) now that the old one has collapsed.

Sorry, no sale.

It's time for General Taguba or someone with equivalent credibility to review the issue.

As for Abu Ghraib, England and Graner did not act on their own, much as the Pentagon would like us to believe that tale. Others did resist illegal orders, but the orders came from the very top. One example of how illegal orders came from Don Rumsfeld: www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact The Taguba report (see for example transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/15/cnnitm.00.html) documented resistance of illegal orders (Robert Jay Lifton has apparently done a lot of work on the topic of resisting illegal orders). But the orders came from the top.

In trying to confuse the issue, in accusing people who call for an investigation of being disloyal or stupid or whatever, what is becoming increasingly clear is that what you seem to hate and fear the most is the light, Ray.

That's not a good place to be. (John 3:20-21)

Charles of MercuryRising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Okay, now I get it, now I know who I have been debating with. Your facade of reason has slipped. This will be my last post since this is an obvious waste of time. The floor is yours...
1. A specialist is not a junior officer; translate that to a HS diploma plus two years or less on the job. Translate that to linguistics school, about one year, so probably less than one year on the job other than language classes. You really want to stack him up against the combined training of SEALS, RECON, JAG/LTC, Chief Petty Officer, and a Major. Does that sound reasonable?
2. You think it's reasonable to rely on statements in which he says "I didn't see it but I heard about it"? God, I hope you are not a lawyer unless you are working for the other guy.
3. What happened at Abu Ghraib was PERPETRATED by junior soldiers BECAUSE there was lack of officer and senior NCO oversite. Ask any junior soldier and they will tell you that, as they have all told me in discussion.
4. England and Granier were tried and convicted for taking it upon themselves to inflict physical and psychological harm on detainees with no purpose but to satisfy their own sadistic pleasures. Can you see the difference between that and scaring somebody with a dog to get battlefield intelligence? If not, you are simply being obstinate and unreasonable because a blind man could see it. And sleep deprivation and starvation is a routine part of military training. Any soldiers out there want to throw down on that with this dunce?
5. I did not miss any of the young mans statements, I analyzed them; here let's try it: In the quote from this "intelligence analyst" (translate that to linguist with possibly very little interrogation training) that you took such pains to quote he says in one paragraph, one response: ". I don't know. I don't know what to say....... I remember hearing.... out there from the marines... but I don't know if that's accurate"
Lets translate that: 2 "I don't knows" (about what he was talking about), 1 reference to something he heard (again), and 1 reference questioning his own accuracy. What about this gives you confidence or establishes this witness as credible? Any lawyers or cops reading this? Want to tell us how this would go as to the witness's credibility? And if this is not credible, what purpose does it serve to support your allegations?

The global security piece is accurate and gives a realistic accounting. If your point is that I said there were zero civilian casualties, think again. It is more than probable there were civilian casualties. The question at hand, although you keep trying to move the bar to suit you, is if WP was used on civilians by the US. The answer again, based on every piece of evidence you have cited, is not one thing substantiates this charge. As to the question of proof of the US inflicting civilian casualties, still no proof, but I would not say it wasn't possible. That is called being reasonable.
As for Amy Goodman:
I noted the new info you supplied about the Washington times that could legitimately call into question it's credibility. Now that is reasonable. I supplied you with another source.
I have pointed out the lack of credibility of this Amy Goodman as someone who interviewed Jeff Englehart when no other legitimate US news source would touch him. You waved that information off. That is unreasonable.
Reason vs. unreasonable.
You think this specialist is more credible than SEALS, RECON, JAG/LTC, Marine Major, and a Chief Warrant Officer.
You think this specialist has credibility despite his own inability to state these allegations without qualifying with "I don't know, I heard, I don't know if that's accurate."
You believe the Jihadists, Baathists, and al-jezeera over US soldiers.
You believe someone who had the credulity to believe Jeff Englehart enough to interview him when even the most hard core blameocrats have figured out he is a lying snake.

You are the definition of unreasonable sir, therefore your questioning of my credentials and experience means the same thing to me that your opinion of the matter in question does, absolutely nothing.

Ray, Amy Goodman interviews everyone. Calling into doubt everything said on her show because you disagree with one guest is, well, a bit loopy.

I haven't questioned The Washington Times article on Fallujah, even based on the well-documented fact that The Times is often wrong, in cases deliberately so. Sometimes even loons and liars are right. It almost always pays to listen. But I had to chuckle at your attitude that just because it's in The Wash Times, it's true.

The Global Security piece you linked is very good. You should read it sometime.

It states that of 300,000 civilians, our own military estimates that 30,000 to 90,000 remained in the city despite the bombing. The military estimates that only 2,000-3,000 "hardcore insurgents" remained. So, *at least 90% of the people in Fallujah were civilians.*

The article says the military seized access to the hospital, which in my opinion may in future be brought forward as evidence of criminal intent, especially since the Middle Eastern branch of the Red Cross (the Red Crescent) says that it was not granted access to provide compassionate care. The article says the hardcore insurgents were able to move in and out of Fallujah at will through tunnels, while civilians were trapped. Just taking the basic facts as supplied by the military, we see exactly why urban military operations are a recipe for disaster.

The minute you say about Tony Lagouranis that "This is probably a good kid who just didn't have the stomach for what is a tough business," it probably should have registered that it was time to tap your own STFU button and see what happens when you pay attention.

You missed the places where he said, "Well, certainly, some of them [the 500 dead people Lagouranis saw] were burned....I would get a kid burnt to a crisp. I don't know. I don't know what to say. We had women and children.... I remember hearing the -- a number of 10,000 [dead Iraqis or other non-Americans] out there from the marines, but I don't know if that's accurate....And from that sample [of 500], I would say about 20% of them actually had weapons on them."

Now, I have said again and again and again that this doesn't *prove* that incendiary weapons were used in Fallujah. *Proof* is for courts. What people who care about whether our troops ends up as the hero or the goat will pay attention to is how Lagouranis's statements fit into a larger pattern of information. The corpses getting sent to Lagouranis were people that someone thought would provide intelligence proving foreign involvement in the insurgency.

In this sample of 500 dead, he's getting women and children. He's not getting many people with weapons (which would be something a body collector would try to include for intelligence value if it were present at the scene). Some corpses he got were burned. We don't know if from wounds inflected directly or indirectly by fires, but burned. In other words, whoever is collecting bodies is either incompetent or, more likely, desperate. They're not finding guys who are obviously foreign fighters.

Combined with the GlobalSecurity article, we have an estimate that two non-fighters were killed for every fighter present... and that most fighters slipped free. Meaning that we maybe killed five civilians for every fighter we killed.

This is part of a larger pattern of evidence. At this point, it better fits the impression that an incendiary was used as an offensive weapon and, separately, that destruction was indiscriminate.

That removes any mystery as to why the US is facing so much opposition. Abu Ghraib + massive financial corruption + high unemployment + no electricity or trash collection + lots of dead civilians = resistance.

In this post, you've openly admitted that you regard as legitimate interrogation techniques that the rest of the world does not regard as legitimate: using dogs (to terrorize hooded men who can't see that they are muzzled), sleep deprivation (to promote PTSD), dietary manipulation (also called starving people), and hypothermia (to promote a fear of imminent death) to coerce information from people of whom we know from Abu Ghraib ca. three quarters had *no connection to the insurgency.*

Lindy England and Charles Graner got cashiered for these techniques. And you're still calling them normal?

You've stated that when junior officers make complaints, they should be dismissed because they don't know as much as senior officers. That's what happened at Abu Ghraib, where junior officers did protest. Ignoring what junior troops said is why Iraq turned into a nightmare. No one has a monopoly on morality or common sense. When junior people are protesting, senior people need to hear.

As for who you are... I'd guess a black Labrador. That's at least as persuasive as anything you've offered as evidence for special skills.

Have a nice Thanksgiving!

Woof!

Woof! Woof! Woof!

;-)

Charles of MercuryRising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

to seequal-
as crazy as say...Roosevelt and Churchill working with Stalin to destroy the Nazi's? (apply this to the crap about Saddam would never work with Bin Ladin. I find it interesting that so many Americans prefer to believe an American scientist did this but are unable to postulate that AQ did this with the source of the anthrax being Iraq. I know it was Ames anthrax developed by the US but this strain was released to foreign countries and Saddam had the capability to weaponize it. But no, it had to be an American doing this to his own people. It couldn't possibly be the same people who just destroyed the WTC, pentagon and killed 3000 Americans. Of course there is no such thing as combined arms warfare which calls for simultaneous attacks via different means on multiple fronts. Nope, no way this could have been AQ and Saddam, because the blameocrats say, thats why! wew, sorry about that one, back to your points)

When you go beyond the emotion that is invoked by looking at these pictures, you can analyze them. There are 2 key things you have to accept. This bull about the cloths not burning is soundly debunked. WP can melt metal, why not cloths. The second thing you have to understand is that the condition of these bodies can be due to several processes.

1. fire
2. exposure
3. explosion
4. chemical warefare? Unlikely, compare these photos to what Saddam did in Anphul (i have). There were thousands of victims without a scratch or burn.
5. WP, possible, but unlikely. WP as applied in Fallujah is easily avoided. It is also fairly controlled as opposed to a chemical weapon that disperses over a wide are indiscriminately.

But look at the photos. Do they tell you:

1. Which of the above caused the blackening? maybe a forensics expert could tell, but they look no different to the non- WP related photos of bodies I have analyzed that are "blackened".

2. If these bodies were burned, what was the source?
3. If these bodies were burned, who burned them?
4. If these bodies were burned, were they even alive when they were burned?
5. If they were burned post mortem, who would have reason to do this and why?
Can you imagine a scenario, as aweful as it is to imagine, where the Jihadists went to the town morgue, pulled out women and children who were dead from non combat injuries or illness and shot them or burned them to make it look like we were doing it? Impossible you think? I read an al-jezeerah article in which a doctor in Fallujah claimed that US snipers were purposely and indiscriminately shooting hospital patients in their beds. For crying out loud!!! That is the kind of nonsense that people need to know about to evaluate another important factor:
6. What is the credibility of the witnesses who are the "source" of the photos?
a. Jihadists butchering people (literally) and taking hostages (such as the Italian reporter held for 3 months who was there to help the Jihadists and is still doing so, Stockholm syndrome anybody?)
b. Saddam holdouts who want their power back.
c. "Civilians" who inexplicably decided to stay even though the US and Iraqi governements directed a mass evacuation effort and created IDP facilities for them (in other words, stupid people).
d. Journalists from sources like the BBC which has come under much critisism from even the other British media for its anti-American reporting, and al-jezeerah.
e. Appearantly no ligitimate forensics examinations or military analysts to verify these claims, that I know about.

6. Who would gain and who would be hurt at the mere implication even without confirmation?

Add this all together and you have zero evidence that WP was used on civilians in Fallujah but a whole lot of reasons for those with Anti-US views to make the accusation anyway.

Ray,
re: (2) Iranians sending fighters into the SUnni triangle; as unlikely as the Japanese imperials having assisted Mao during the long march.

re: (5) single instance of use of WP on a civilian -- more than one photographed instances of caramelized bodies who were clearly female. I will post the url fyv in the pm.

Amazing. If I type "Phosphor Fallujah" right now on Google I do not find any major news source from US. It must be a fake, and we should all go to bed. Night will come anyway, sooner or later.

I erase the rest of the post and stop here. I do not think the world is a game with an instruction book, with paragraphs and catches. But I believe to the poor people dying that I saw, on Ground Zero and in Fallujah. Goodnight, hello.

To Charles, First time I have heard this about the Washington times, noted.
Try this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm
A pretty good reference, though they fail to mention repeated evacuations directly.
First, let's check out your link, fair enough.
The first thing I notice is that this is the same format and interviewer that did the Jeff Englehart interview, the proven liar from the RAI fakeumentary. You want to talk about my sources? Okay. Let's just go with it.
And there it is folks, the BS detectors are blaring:
"Would interrogate people, they were using ice water to lower the body temperature of the prisoner and they would take his rectal temperature in order to make sure that he didn't die. I didn't see this, but that's what many, many prisoners told me who came out of the SEAL Compound, and I also heard that from a guard who was working in our detention facility, who was present during an interrogation that the SEAL had done."
Now lets compare this to Jeff Englehart in the RAI documentary discussing the claim that US troops were defaming Mosques and Quarans on a large scale. After talking about this for about a minute he says:
"well I didn't actually see it, but other guys told me about it.."

They didn't actually see it, but...oh well, they are not under oath after all...
But, I'll just keep reading...
Oh, I forgot this shocking prologue from the interview:
• His use of harsh interrogation techniques on prisoners in Iraq including dogs, sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation and dietary manipulation. - I know this sucks because I experienced it, its called basic training....(except for the dogs-they just shot 7.62 tracers over our heads to scare us)
• How Navy SEALS induced hypothermia by using ice water to lower the body temperature of prisoners. - but again, he didn't see this, and doesn't even clarify if this means topical or ingestion
• Serving in Fallujah and going through the clothes and pockets of some 500 dead bodies to try and identify them. - no problem here, but doesn't say much
• The corpses on men, women and children in Fallujah, which had been lying in the streets for days and had been "eaten by dogs and birds and maggots," were then stacked up in a warehouse where U.S. soldiers ate and slept.- ugly but not exactly conclusive evidence that US forces used WP on women and children.
Back to the interview:
"I think most people left Fallujah who weren't going to stay there and fight. But I really don't know. I cannot really say."-interesting...
He says when questioned as to did he try to make anybody aware of the abuse.
"I did all the time. You know, at that point, I was like so pissed at the military for what they were doing, you know. And you know, I was yelling at the chief warrant officer marine who was in charge of the defense facility. I was making an issue about it to the major of the Marines, and the lieutenant colonel who was the JAG guy who was in charge of release, who organize keeping the prisoners. I mean, but they just wouldn't listen. You know? They wanted numbers. They wanted numbers of terrorists, apprehended at FOB CALSU, so they could brief that to the general?"

So this specialist knows more about the law than a JAG/ LTC (translate that to lawyer of several years experience)?
So this specialist knows more than a Chief Warrant Officer with probably 15 to 20 years experience about detaining prisoners?
He also knows more than a Major with probably ten years experience?
He also knows more than Navy Seals and Marine recon, all highly trained, battle tested, seasoned experts in their field?
Can we all smell the BS now???
This is probably a good kid who just didn't have the stomach for what is a tough business. I suggest he go work for the UN or something.

(1) Facilities were set up to care for the IDPs. This included U.S. military, Iraqi government, and NGO support.
(2) Wow, maybe we are defining Jihadist differently. It is the only thing I can think of that would cause a reasonable person to disagree based on pretty much every source including the Iraqi government which didn't particularly like the idea of us blowing away Iraqis but asked us to clear Fallujah. Why is the violence rising? I don't believe it is, but let's ask anyway. Because there a lot of people out there coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Chechnyia, North Africa, Afghanistan and others that have nothing better to do than go kill some Americans and get their virgins. That is a part of the reason we invaded Iraq, so we would have a battle ground to face them on that wasn't in our country. As to intel estimates- private intel analysts get work by getting noticed. They get work by having a different opinion and standing out from the group. That is why they love to take contrarian positions. Because they will get gigs as the "other view" and once in a while, win the jock pot by being the only guy right, or at least run around claiming they were like Richard Clark.
(2) debatable, but really boils down to opinion
(3) I am not sure how you dismiss such an important point, but whatever floats your boat
(4) The only point I get out of this other than you agree that purposely attacking civilians for no military gain but to terrorize and bend them to your political purpose is terrorism (congratulations, there may be hope for a blameocrat yet) is that the people in Fallujah did not include Jihadists. Perhaps we disagree on what this is, as stated earlier, because pretty much every source confirms a large presence of Jihadists along with Saddam hold outs.
(5) Again, no proof that even one civilian was killed by WP, not one single fact.

"As for who you are or what your qualifications are, I have no idea. On the Internet, everyone's a dog until they prove themselves otherwise. "
"What I do know is that your understanding of Iraq, of general history, of unconventional warfare, and of a number of other topics is weak."
Mr, I have over ten years of army experience as an artillery officer providing fire support to the 3rd brigade combat team at Lewis, BSO support to the 101st in Kosovo, and medical support as an enlisted soldier during the Gulf War, contractor support during the Iraq war to the Iraqi Survey Group. I am also a graduate of
The University of Tampa, pre med
Field Artillery Officer Basic Course
Signal Officer Advanced Course
Combined Arms and Services Staff School
Airborne course
Air Assault course
I have a good background in the middle east having spent nearly 2 years there.
I currently work in military research providing analysis of future systems, the really cool ones.

Ray Robison, could I point out a few things to you?

The Washington Times is owned and operated by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who says that he has arrived to do the job at redeeming humanity that he says Jesus failed at. Moon was convicted of tax fraud. His original editor Arnoud de Borchgrave says the newspaper makes stuff up. This has been confirmed by a journalist who worked there, David Brock. The current editor, Wes Pruden, has strong ties to white supremacist groups, and is the source of the term "Prudenizing the news." (meaning, making it up)

None of this proves that the article you cite is inaccurate. It could well be one of the more factual pieces produced by Pruden's Fudge Factory.

But when you toss it out with a flourish and say, "See? Here's *proof*. It's in the Washington Times!" you're likely to produce a giggle fit in your listener, at least if the listener has a clue.

Anyway, to the substance of it.

(1) Did the US Army try to get civilians to evacuate? Sure. Problem is, people *live* there. You don't just throw tens of thousands of people out of their homes without giving them some serious alternatives. If you do, it's called ethnic cleansing.

(2) It's total nonsense that "jihadists poured in." I'm not going to go into this in detail, but the bottom line is that if the US is winning such brilliant victories, how come the level of violence is rising? Why are people like Sergeant Tony Lagouranis telling us that only a small fraction of the bodies being reviewed for intelligence purporses are fighters? Why are reliable estimates telling us that maybe 5-10% of the combatants the US faces are from outside of Iraq (and many of them may have family inside Iraq)?

(2) For some reason, 'wingers seem to think that beheading is a major talking point. Look: dying sucks. What can suck even worse is how much you suffer getting there. Beheading is probably a more humane death than death by incendiary device. Both are almost certainly war crimes, especially when practiced against civilians. If Abu al Zarqawi and Donald Rumsfeld are tried by the same court for crimes against humanity, fine. Just don't expect that al Zarqawi's wrongful deeds will in any way justify Rumsfeld's.

(3) Just because you get Iraqi fingers pulling some triggers doesn't change things. Who bought their weapons, trained them, and ultimately sent them into battle? Germans got Ukrainians, Romanians, and other conquered people to pull triggers for them, but it didn't change the judgment they faced when the dust settled.

(4) Yes, a lot of violence by people fighting American forces (who you mistakenly call jihadists) is directed against Iraqis. The Iraqis who are targeted are regarded as collaborators and are much less well-defended than American troops. Many more are "collateral damage." This is called asymmetrical warfare. American colonists used it in the Revolutionary War. Including some very nasty terrorism against loyalists to the Crown.

(5) None of the above has to do with white phosphorus per se. The questions are whether civilians were present in Fallujah, whether the US military used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon, and whether the use was sufficiently targeted that it would not be regarded as an area weapon. Only a transparent and independent investigation will prove that. However, the US is rapidly losing the judgment rendered by world opinion by having stonewalled and lied.

As for who you are or what your qualifications are, I have no idea. On the Internet, everyone's a dog until they prove themselves otherwise.

What I do know is that your understanding of Iraq, of general history, of unconventional warfare, and of a number of other topics is weak. Worst of all is your unwillingness to consider what Sergeant Tony Lagouranis has said. (www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/1632233)

If you're unwilling to even acknowledge *his* testimony, why should anyone else imagine that you'll hear what they say?

Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

seequel- "Indiscriminate application of force ie. savagery can only serve to align more Sunnis with the insurgency."

The only thing indiscriminate here are the leveling of accusations that are based on zero evidence. Did anyone notice millions of Iraqis taking to the streets to exercise their new won freedom to demonstrate? This is because the Iraqis fully understood who was in Fallujah, and the great pains the Iraqi and US governements went to so that civilians could leave. If you can provide me one more case in history where an army took such pains to seperate the enemy from the civilians in an urban battle, then please share it.

Since we all already agree that Fallujah was a resounding success, the question comes back to use of WP. Being technologically, morally, physically and organizationally superiour to the insurgents we could have laid off the WP and still achieved victory.

Indiscriminate application of force ie. savagery can only serve to align more Sunnis with the insurgency.

"Savagery like this only makes us look incapable of pulling off a well organized, massive attack."

A well organized, massive attack is savage by definition, let's not kid ourselves on that one. BTW, I know results are meaningless to the blameocrats, but we did take back Fallujah and killed off thousands of Jihadists. Notice the beheading videos stopped coming out after Fallujah? What does that tell you about who was in Fallujah?

These are acts of desperation. I for one think we botched that "shock and awe" idea Mr. Rumsfield mentioned early on in the strategy phase. Savagery like this only makes us look incapable of pulling off a well organized, massive attack.

Hey Michael,
that report is the transcript between two Kurds. It is not a report with findings and conclusions describing WP as a chemical weapon by the U.S. gov. It is one Kurdish guy calling WP a chemical weapon. Keep looking blameocrats, nothing to see here....

It looks like it is a chemical weapon, even according to the Pentagon. Surely you ought to return to this subject, Mr. Arkin, and apologize for apologizing for these monsters. Even qualified apologies, in this case, are despicable.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/21/173814/60

To Charles, from the Washingtontimes

"A combined force of Marines, Army soldiers and Iraqi national guardsmen ringed the city west of Baghdad, blocking exit routes. For weeks, the coalition has allowed residents to leave in an effort to further isolate an estimated 5,000 militants inside the city. Aircraft dropped leaflets urging residents to leave for designated refugee areas. "
"The window is closing for a peaceful settlement," Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said at a press conference in Brussels, where he met with European Union leaders. "We intend to liberate the people.... The insurgents and the terrorists are still operating there. We hope they will come to their senses otherwise we will have to bring them to face justice."
"Seven months ago, Marines seemed on the verge of subduing Fallujah. They conducted house-by-house, search-and-destroy missions that killed hundreds of militant. But Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the top U.S. commander, halted operations after Iraqi interim government officials objected. The fear was that continuing the killing would prevent the naming of a transition government. "
"It is not clear whether Zarqawi, who has personally beheaded captives, is inside Fallujah. Military sources told The Washington Times this past summer that he left the city and constantly moves from location to location. He takes a hands-on approach, personally greeting newly arrived jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other countries. He then gives the assassins car-bombing missions, usually against Iraqis who are aiding the Americans."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041105-114300-5466r.htm

1. evacuations
2. psyops to encourage civilians to leave
3. al-zarqawi beheading people
4. Jihadists pooring in
5. Iraqi government stopping the fight and then asking the US to clean out the town
6. US fighting side by side with Iraqi troops

I don't know how else to paint this picture. This one article backs up everything I have stated and adds more. And note it added about the Jihadists missions to attack Iraqis, that one thing alone should call into question who killed "civilians" in Fallujah. And surely an informed person such as you are aware of the torture and slaughter rooms we discovered when we took Fallujah. I think I am in a position to know something about war crimes. I did serve in Kosovo in buildings under UN war crime invesigation (crime scenes). I did provide medical support to people from Kuwait who were chopped up by the Republican guard. And I did provide video evidence of Saddam regime and Jihadist war crimes to various government agencies, you know the kind of stuff that will be used against Saddam in court very soon.
You have to choose a side and I think you have chosen poorly. Good luck with that..

Ray Robison says: "As far as Fallujah and civilians, Fallujah was evacuated three times by the US and the Iraqi government."

This myth has been debunked several times here already, but you repeat it hoping nobody will read on to the facts below which prove you wrong.

Not only was Falluja NOT evacuated before the main Army bombardment and assault in Nov 2004, the Army actively herded fleeing civilians - including children - back into the city to face the attack, and admitted doing it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138376,00.html
U.S. Won't Let Men Flee Fallujah
Saturday, November 13, 2004
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave...
...As (the US military) believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.
"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.
"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night...
ENDS

Fox News quoting the commander of the operation. Perhaps you will claim that these are America-hating leftists seeking to give comfort to the enemy.

The war's supporters are living in a fact-free environment. The true facts are easily available, even on FOX, but you guys have brain filters that stop you from hearing them.

In fact the US Army took express measures to ensure that civilians, including 15-year-old boys, were in the path of the bombardment when it came. A bombardment that flattened 70% of the city, according to Falluja's compensation commissioner.

SO LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT. THE US ARMY DID NOT EVACUATE FALLUJA - IT FORCED FLEEING CIVILIANS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, TO RE-ENTER THE CITY AND FACE A HEAVY ARTILLERY BOMBARDMENT.

Col. Formica is taking both Iraqi and American civilians for idiots when he says: Stay away from windows and you'll be safe. Fallujah was pounded with 155mm artillery and is now mostly rubble. If the Army wanted these people to be safe, why did it force them at gunpoint back into a city it was about to bombard?

The Army also machine-gunned people trying to cross the Euphrates to get out of the city. This was reported by FOX and AP. This was not one incident, it was policy. MG nests were placed all along the west bank.

Fallujah was an outrageous war crime irrespective of white phosphorus and Italian documentaries. First the Army forced all males back into the city, a serious war crime in itself. Then it bombarded the city with artillery, including white phosphorus shells. That's targeting civilians by any standard.

Preventing refugees from leaving a combat zone is a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is America claiming to respect those this week? It gets so confusing...

Singling out males for being male is a common war crime. The last example I can think of, apart from Fallujah, is Srebenica.

Anyway you look at it - irrespective of WP - Fallujah was a collective civilian reprisal and a serious war crime. It also failed in its objective of weakening the insurgency, which derails the arguments of those who claim such measures are tough but necessary. Such measures are brutal, criminal, and counterproductive.

Ray, that comment falls in the category of point number three in a post that I made over at Needlenose (www.needlenose.com/node/view/2295), reproduced below. See if you can figure it out.

Hint: it starts with the letter "d."

___From Needlenose___
I honestly doubt there is anyone posting here, whether Ray Robison or Swopa or anyone else, who is competent to judge whether war crimes were committed in Fallujah or even whether the Italian documentary should be relied on.

I also do not claim to be capable of reaching that judgment.

However, these things are true:

1. There are multiple sources claiming that some form of probably proscribed weapon was used in Fallujah and that civilians were hit indiscriminately. Sources include Tony Langouranis, who served as an intelligence contractor, and was in Fallujah soon after the fighting; Dahr Jamail, who is an opinionated but inarguably brave and insightful independent reporter; and the documentary. I believe there are other sources but don't have them at hand.

2. It is not the job of eyewitnesses, journalists, or even field intelligence operatives to prove that a war crime was or was not committed. Enough evidence has been produced that a war crime may have been committed that it is time for all of us to stop, take a breath, and realize that it is our responsibility to demand a proper investigation. What turned Abu Ghraib from a scandal into a nightmare was the failure to respond promptly, openly, and honestly as soon as the photos started to leak out.

3. Members of the military, this is doubly your responsibility. Your good name is attached to a service that has been accused of the very serious matter of indiscriminately targeting civilians in what amounts to genocide.

NO ONE CARES WHETHER THE PLANES THAT DROPPED THE NAPALM ON THE VIETNAMESE GIRL WERE PILOTED BY SOUTH VIETNAMESE OR AMERICAN PILOTS OR ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER DEFLECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TRIED TO RAISE.

Reading some of the comments on places like Confederate Yankee, in which right-wingers accuse "liberals" (which now includes Marine Colonel John Murtha) of... well, d--n near anything...is despicable and needs to stop now.

The only thing that history will remember is whether you faced this accusation like men who believe in the good things you say you are bringing to Iraq or whether you try to brush this off the way that Abu Ghraib was brushed off... for a time. If you choose the latter course, and if the truth turns out to be even 30% like what is alleged in the documentary, history will judge you complicit.

Charles at MercuryRising
http:www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Ray, that comment falls in the category of point number three in a post that I made over at Needlenose (www.needlenose.com/node/view/2295), reproduced below. See if you can figure it out.

Hint: it starts with the letter "d."

___From Needlenose___
I honestly doubt there is anyone posting here, whether Ray Robison or Swopa or anyone else, who is competent to judge whether war crimes were committed in Fallujah or even whether the Italian documentary should be relied on.

I also do not claim to be capable of reaching that judgment.

However, these things are true:

1. There are multiple sources claiming that some form of probably proscribed weapon was used in Fallujah and that civilians were hit indiscriminately. Sources include Tony Langouranis, who served as an intelligence contractor, and was in Fallujah soon after the fighting; Dahr Jamail, who is an opinionated but inarguably brave and insightful independent reporter; and the documentary. I believe there are other sources but don't have them at hand.

2. It is not the job of eyewitnesses, journalists, or even field intelligence operatives to prove that a war crime was or was not committed. Enough evidence has been produced that a war crime may have been committed that it is time for all of us to stop, take a breath, and realize that it is our responsibility to demand a proper investigation. What turned Abu Ghraib from a scandal into a nightmare was the failure to respond promptly, openly, and honestly as soon as the photos started to leak out.

3. Members of the military, this is doubly your responsibility. Your good name is attached to a service that has been accused of the very serious matter of indiscriminately targeting civilians in what amounts to genocide.

NO ONE CARES WHETHER THE PLANES THAT DROPPED THE NAPALM ON THE VIETNAMESE GIRL WERE PILOTED BY SOUTH VIETNAMESE OR AMERICAN PILOTS OR ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER DEFLECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TRIED TO RAISE.

Reading some of the comments on places like Confederate Yankee, in which right-wingers accuse "liberals" (which now includes Marine Colonel John Murtha) of... well, d--n near anything...is despicable and needs to stop now.

The only thing that history will remember is whether you faced this accusation like men who believe in the good things you say you are bringing to Iraq or whether you try to brush this off the way that Abu Ghraib was brushed off... for a time. If you choose the latter course, and if the truth turns out to be even 30% like what is alleged in the documentary, history will judge you complicit.

Charles at MercuryRising
http:www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Well Charles, I guess it comes down to who you want to believe. I will take the side of our wonderful, heroic soldiers and their humanity and training. You can side with the Saddam supporters and guys cutting peoples heads off in Fallujah. Good luck with that one...

Correction: I see I should have addressed the previous comment not to Bob Owens, site owner of where the analysis Ray Robison says his work appears, but to Ray Robison. It's not clear to me what the relationship is between these individuals, nor is it very important to me.

I do see that remarks ascribed to a Ray Robison who says he was an artilleryman and with the Iraq Survey Group.(www.needlenose.com/node/view/2263/31731#comment-31731)

The substance of the remarks still applies.

Especially the part that enough evidence has been brought forward that it's time for someone with the stature of a General Taguba to look into it.

Charles of Mercury Rising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Look, Bob. I'm sorry, but neither the qualifications you claim nor the blogs you draw on impress me. Not to knock East Carolina University and its English program, but it's not the last word on weapons, military doctrine, chemistry, or forensic medicine. As for the blogs you read...

Little Green Footballs?

C'mon.

Sure, read whatever you like. But the poverty of your sources shows in the quality of your debate.

1. Whether you were or were not with the Iraqi Survey Group at another time and place is, for me at least, an unverifiable claim. It also has no bearing on the issue. I do find it interesting that you don't list military service on your webpage. Most veterans are proud to do so.

2. I never mentioned the Italian film as a primary source of evidence. I listed Tony Langouranis, who was on the scene under the employ of the US military. He saw burns consistent with incendiaries. What he described is consistent of photographs that have come out of Fallujah from more than one source.

The Italian film: www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=17582&s2=09
Military photos obtained by independent journalist: dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32
Non-milatary photos via same independent journalist: ahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28

There are other sources than those two but I have supplied enough to persuade any reasonable person that there is no basis to believe that the Italian film is fake, as you allege.

When a guy like Langouranis says that only 20% of the 500 bodies he reviewed were fighters, and when he agrees that there was incendiary use, that should be a signal to you to start considering the possibility that you might be arguing the wrong side of the case.

3. The US military has already backed down off its blanket denials into admitting they were using white phosphorus. When people admit that previously they weren't telling the truth, that's also a clue to the wise to cool the jets and start listening more closely.

4. The claim that bodies but not clothes were not burned is surprising. But (a) it is the claim of a single observer, (b) many of the photos contradict the claim, (b) it is possible for a chemical to burn relatively small holes through clothes without igniting the clothes.

5. It's not up to journalists to prove that a war crime was committed. They have gathered enough evidence that one was committed that a failure of higher command to perform a searching and honest investigation along the lines of the Taguba Report could itself become evidence that commission of war crimes was ordered from the top.

Finally, I have to say this. There seems to be a new phenom on the right that if you can just produce enough pretty glossies with appropriate technojargon and just say enough nasty things about your opponents, you can invent your own reality.

Reality has its own ideas.

And it bites.

Charles from Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

To Charles, I also had the grim task of analyzing videos of dead bodies with the Iraqi Survey Group for over a year to include a great many beheading videos. I recommend you review my analysis of the RAI fakeumentary on www.confederateyankee.mu.nu.
The relevant part to your point is that a photo can show a dead body that is blackened, but exposure does this as well as explosions and plain old fire. This "cloths left unburned" stuff is pure junk. There is no way to know what killed those people from photos.
As far as Fallujah and civilians, Fallujah was evacuated three times by the US and the Iraqi government. In fact, many IRAQI troops fought beside us because the Jihadists in Fallujah were trying to kill Iraqi government officials. Remember those beheading videos that were coming out about once or twice a week? Did you happen to notice they stopped after Fallujah? What does that tell you about Fallujah...

To Charles, I also had the grim task of analyzing videos of dead bodies with the Iraqi Survey Group for over a year to include a great many beheading videos. I recommend you review my analysis of the RAI fakeumentary on www.confederateyankee.mu.nu.
The relevant part to your point is that photo can show a dead body that is black, but exposure does this as well as explosions and plain old fire. This "cloths left unburned" stuff is pure junk.
As far as Fallujah and civilians, Fallujah was evacuated three times by the US and the Iraqi govrnment. In fact, many IRAQI

Hm. Well, JPR, it looks like the "blameocrats" you need to argue with are writing officer instruction manuals for the Army.

Here's the quote and the source: "The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the 'laws of war' to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: 'It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.'" (news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece)

Now, if what you were saying were true, that the phosphorus was not used as a direct weapon, then you might have a point. The Army response is to cite another section of the manual.

Unfortunately, there's photographic evidence that incendiaries were used directly against human beings, including "jihadist" toddlers. A fellow who had the grim task of analyzing bodies for intelligence purposes says that only 20% of the 500 bodies he reviewed were probably fighting men. His name is Tony Lagouranis. His interview is up at www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/1632233

Charles of MercuryRising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

I think it's important to remember that the Jihadists had months to prepare defensive positions. The WP was used because the HE couldn't penetrate on some positions. Therefore it follows that if the HE couldn't penetrate or bullets, it is unlikely that WP would have made much if any direct contact with the people in those positions. The WP was used for seondary effects, smoke and fire to drive them out. Now all you blameocrats can feel better about yourselves.

William Arkin says, "But what is most interesting here is .... why critics insist on labeling it [phosphorus as an anti--personnel incendiary] "illegal" without ever recognizing the contradiction in their argument."

Unfortunately, he fails to enlighten us as to what the contradiction is.

There are several bases on which to regard phosphorus as an illegal weapon of war. The first is whether its deployment can be focused enough not to endanger civilian populations. This issue arose most notably with the use of cluster munitions, which all too often end up maiming children. Human Rights Watch discusses how the Geneva Conventions prohibit area weapons at www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/clusters0704/2.htm

A related issue is whether phosphorus can be considered a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are notorious as area weapons because it's so hard to control drift of vapors. Phosphorus per se is not a chemical weapon. However, use of phosphorus generates a mist of phosphoric acid as it reacts with water. This can attack lungs and eyes in a manner not fundamentally different from mustard gas. While the body is far more able to handle phosphoric acid than mustard gas, this is a valid criticism.

A third question is whether incendiary weapons including phosphorus are unusually cruel. I realize it's difficult to imagine war as anything except cruel. However, the rest of the world believes that they are. The US attachment to incendiary weapons is (as Arkin indicates) backward looking, foolish, a mistake reflecting failure and frustration.

As for bullets being illegal, the rest of the world is firmly opposed to the use of depleted uranium for bullets because of its potential long-term genotoxicity. Again the issue of indiscriminate harm characteristic of area weapons.

I am stunned to hear it claimed by Mr. Arkin that "critics of white phosphorus and the U.S. military" never support military operations.

As a critic of both white phosphorus and of *the illegal orders given to troops in* the U.S. military by their commanders, I've never had any doubt that war is sometimes the only just course. I think I speak for most Americans both in understanding that war is sometimes necessary and in believing we must set high standards for how we conduct it. This is primarily for the benefit of the troops, many of whom bear the psychological scars of war long after the physical wounds have healed. The strongest shield for their mind, the best healing tonic is knowing that they did their best not to harm noncombatants. Area weapons strike at their shield.

War was justified in World War I, in World War II, and less so in Korea. But increasingly, in Vietnam, in Grenada, in Panama, in Gulf War I, and now most outrageously in Gulf II, we have been lied into war. If we had to place our case before an impartial tribunal for those wars, and if all the facts were to come out, we would be judged culpable of the supreme crime. Caught in our own hubris and blind nationalism, we have lost the moral compass that should guide us through.

Charles of Mercury Rising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Assaulteer, try to ask what USA governement was doing when Saddam was using nerve gas:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The gates of hell have been opened. Will we ever be able to
close them now that the village idiots have opened them?

To George, thanks for the feedback.
The article you link states "The birds ate pellets of the material, mistaking it for food, but its toxicity triggered a reaction in the birds' stomachs that eventually killed them."

This of course referes to ingestion which is toxic as I stated in the work you dispute. The environmental conditions as described in the article you referred me to create a unique local situation where WP can likely be encapsulated by mud or bog before oxidizing. This environment is much different than in Iraq. That should be taken into the context of whether WP will be left unoxided "on the ground". If WP is exposed it will oxidize (burn).

Ok I don't get why everyone is going all crazy that we used WP. We used it to good effect in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. And now that all of a sudden a few people get killed by WP its a big deal. Well HE and AP shells also kill insurgents and if improperly used they will (and do) kill civilians.

As for the Italians, well they just dont like that we have a death penalty (i agree with them on that one) so their media (and that of Europe as a whole) has to paint the USA as a war monger for using WP. Even if we are using it to kill people, would it be better if we used M-16, M-4 and HE rounds to kill people rather then WP? It just looks more gruesome then most other ways of death and thats why this is making such a big splash.

And BTW When Saddam was killing hundreds (if not thousands) of Kurds with actual nerve gas, then were were these Euporean liberal, anti-american journalists and media?
PS: Im not in the military yet, but hopefully if all works out, Il be in Armor or Infantry in Army or USMC in a few years.

I did not read all 160+ previous postings, so if this has been covered. . .

The reason Italians and others classify WP as a chemical weapon is because they signed all three sections of some international treaty. The third section dealt with WP and defined WP as a chemical weapon.

The U.S. has not signed the third section, just one and two. Section one dealt with chemical gas and nerve gas. Section 2 with napalm and napalm like substances. Section 3 with WP.

So, technically, both the Italian press and the U.S. military are correct when the former argues WP is a chemical weapon and the latter states that WP is not a chemical weapon.

I just love international law.

To Ray Robinson:

Sorry, but what you said is not accurate. WP, and its intermediate combustion "smoke" products (which include fine residual particles of hazardous unreacted WP , phosphine, and phosphine oxides, are toxic and can be very persistent. Evidence the Eagle River Military Firing Range near Anchorage AK, where WP artillery rounds were fired over 40 years ago, and which is still a hazardous Superfund site today because of toxic WP residues which are still killing waterfowl and endangering local residents today.

http://www.eenews.net/specialreports/sr_dod_rchrdsn.htm

The US knew very well the residual toxic effects of the WP munitions they used on Fallujah, and sent in decontamination teams afterwards to clean up after the city seige.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/10/84846/024/251#251

A lot of people are claiming that WP is a chemical and a weapon therefore it is a chemical weapon. My desire is to clear up this misconception by analyzing the differences between WP as it was used in Fallujah and a chemical weapon. It is not an attempt to dehumanize the event or pass morale judgment either way. I leave that to the reader. But I think it is important for people to have easy to understand, informal analysis to make judgments.

Compare and contrast the use of WP in Fallujah to a generic chemical weapon.

A chemical weapon when deployed will retain its toxicity in vapor or liquid form for a variable length of time usually measurable in hours, depending on the agent. This is to create wide and indiscriminate dispersal.

WP oxidizes spontaneously and does not exist in a residual form when exposed to oxygen other than smoke, which is no more harmful than any smoke because it is no longer "white phosphorous" having oxidized. In addition, the military application in question uses WP embedded on felt wedges to allow a more controlled dispersion versus indiscriminate.

Chemical weapons require protective equipment and decontamination to operate in the affected area.

WP requires none after it oxidizes.

Chemical weapons attack the body in a variety of ways including inhalation and absorption through the skin to produce a toxic effect.

Though you can replicate a scenario in a controlled environment that may demonstrate this for WP, such as forced ingestion, the practical application of WP weapons causes injury by the heat generated by oxidation. The injury is localized to the exposed area and does spread through the body, but it would take massive amounts of exposure to become toxic, which is impractical to this application. It continues until the WP is removed, oxidized, or removed from oxygen. This is a burn, not a toxic reaction.

If you are in a location attacked with a chemical weapon, there is no way to avoid it without protective equipment.

Falling WP can be avoided easily with cover. The WP may cause secondary fires and associated smoke, but fire and smoke are not chemical weapons.

The lethality is what really shows the difference:

If you deployed a chemical weapon against a building containing 20 enemy soldiers, they would probably all die and any one near the building, down the street, around the corner....

If you deployed this application (base-ejecting, artillery 155mm projectile with WP embedded on 116 felt wedges with a total payload about the size of a coffee can) against a building you would have a very low probability of killing any of the soldiers. You would even have a low probability of injury, since in this scenario the enemy has cover. You may get secondary effects from fire and concentrated smoke, but this is not a chemical attack.

Chemical weapons have one function: kill everything in the affected area.

WP has other functionality such as obscuration, incendiary, and marking a target.

A side note:
It is important to note that the documentary shows WP being deployed at night. Assuming this is accurate, many people have asked why we need obscuration at night. Night vision is available on the open market. It is also possible night vision had been captured from friendly forces on the battlefield. Smoke obscures night vision.

Weapons are weapons and war is war, now excuse me while I go microwave a Hot Pocket and watch some Fox News.

Notes: para. 2 - assymetrical

para. 11 - September 11, 2001

Miguel,

--The U.S will NEVER EVER be able to win this kind of war. Al QUEDA is a state of mind. You have to be able to alter or change that state of mind. ... You could kill one man a thousand times, you could never kill his soul. That is the problem. This administration will never get it. That is the main issue.--

The administration sent troops into Iraq knowing full well that they were not adequately prepared to successfully defeat opponents already trained in guerilla warfare tactics (assemetrical/4th generation warfare). A standing army of a million men and women could not defeat 'AQ' et al.

Last evening, as Mr. Cheney accused his opposition of betraying US troops, I had to wonder if the much-needed public debate about how poorly US troops were prepared for both the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts would ever take place. When/if it does, Mr. Cheney, the current administration, and past administrations, will ultimately have to accept responsibility for over 2,000 US deaths, tens of thousands of US injuries, and the countless deaths of innocent civilians in both countries - all for two wars that they knew/know full well can never be won using traditional military methods.

The threat from 'terrorism', world-wide, is increasing every day. Wrong 'wars', wrong methods, unbelievably short-sighted thinking and glaringly poor results - even if Iraq and Afghanistan became secure, independent countries tomorrow.

I agree that the war in terror will not be 'won' by the US because of the nature of the war itself. A reduction of the number of participants is the only variable that could cause the US/West to have any 'leverage' and in light of current sentiment throughout the world regarding the US/West, and the US'/West's short-sighted policies, I do not foresee a reduction in forces occurring anytime soon.

Historically, conflicts with 'terrorists' have been resolved via negotiation. While AQ has intimated in some statements that they are not interested in negotiating with the West, they have also provided a list of issues, if you will, that they would like to see addressed. And, they have further attempted to encourage the American people to try to change the policies of the US government with regard to Middle Eastern countries. Now, 'AQ' is an extremely wise organization. They know full well that American citizens are limited in their power (beyond the power of the individual vote) and that it takes many voices at the same time, speaking in unison, to get the attention of government officials (especially when public opinion polls are dismissed and the public's opinion is referred to as 'opining'.) Add to that the charges that AQ's statements concerning changes in US policy are simply propaganda, the idea that the US should 'never negotiate with terrorists', and the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, and 'negotiations' would seem highly unlikely, if not downright impossible.

Strange, then, how the US has consistently encouraged other nations to negotiate with 'opponents'. For example, the US has consistently encouraged Israel to remain 'at the table' with the Palestinians until an agreement between the two parties can be reached. The US seems to believe that compromise is fitting with regard to that conflict (and others) yet the US itself seems to be 'above' having to engage in any type of compromise whatsoever. Will AQ agree to compromise with the US? Maybe not. But, the US, and its' people, need to know the answer to that question. Why? Because if the answer to that question is a resounding 'no', then the US will know, absolutely, 'where it stands' with regard to AQ. Endless 'war' and death will then be the order of the day, as prescribed by both AQ and the US. No 'smokescreens' on either side, no other option besides an on-going war leading to death and destruction - all around the globe.

The US is losing the "War on Terror" because AQ et al. designed the 'war' in accordance with the weaknesses of the US and its' administrator's typical behavior. Asking the above-mentioned question of AQ et al. would mean that the US would have to admit that it is not immune to its' own advice: an admission that can only help the US under current circumstances. The people of the US, however, have simultaneously been attacked/held directly responsible for the US government's policies and have been asked by AQ to help change those policies. AQ has intimated, then, that the people of the US have some power in this deadly game. Clarification on this point, from AQ, is needed. Allow Mr. Bin Laden or Dr. Al-Zawahri to speak and answer - in full text and clearly translated - for themselves. The American people need to hear what they have to say.

'Unpatriotic' to suggest that the US ask AQ about its' prior suggestions about how to 'call off' the "War on Terror"? No. It is instead 'unpatriotic' not to think about the WOT, possible resolutions to same, and the ramifications of those proposed solutions. 'Unpatriotic' is sending traditional troops into Afghanistan and Iraq to fight a guerilla war. 'Unpatriotic' is telling the American people that the War on Terror can be won without having to compromise, publicly, with any other country and its' people, on any issue whatsoever. 'Unpatriotic' is telling the political opposition that they do not 'support the troops' because they disagree with your policies regarding the war in Iraq (Can there be any greater disrespect for troops than using them in speeches for political gains? Separate the 'troops' from the 'mission'. Didn't politicians do enough damage to troops by using them in the same way during Vietnam?) 'Unpatriotic' is asking the American people to wait for critical answers to important questions while they suffer the public squabbling of party leaders, acting as if they were husband and wife during a nasty divorce, whom voted together to go to war and are now blaming each other for the quagmires that are Afghanistan and Iraq. 'Unpatriotic' is suggesting, indeed telling the rest of the world that the US is a competent 'world-leader', capable of thinking critically and logically, as its' actions on the world stage defy its' own words. 'Unpatriotic' is American media and business bureaucracies that are so close to government administrations that it is no longer possible to differentiate one entity from another. "Unpatriotic' is causing the American people to refer to foreign newspapers for the 'real' story. 'Unpatriotic' is spending billions of dollars on a Homeland Security Department that cannot adequately protect the American people or simply ensure that LE officers can communicate during a time of crisis. 'Unpatriotic' is telling US citizens to be 'vigilant' about looking for signs of terrorist activity when a majority of the population doesn't understand the definition of the word and are not familiar with exactly what constitutes 'suspicious' activities (due to lack of public education.)

'Unpatriotic' is the state of America today, except for some of its' citizens. They waved and held their red, white, and blue flags on 9/11 not because they had some immature, emotional attachment to the flag itself - but because they were raised to believe that the Unites States of America was in some way different. NOT BETTER, different. They believed in an America that could actually work through a given set of problems, using basic common sense. They believed that change and new ideas were positive entities, and not things to be feared by those in power. They believed that their voices, alone or in unison, actually could be heard, precisely because they lived in America, and that their views would be deemed as important by those representing them in DC. They believed in an America in which the 'truth' actually meant the full truth, and not spin for the benefit of a politician. They believed that they would not be lied to by any government official. They believed in the ideal that is still America, despite all that was and is still wrong in and with the country.

'Unpatriotic' is the disgraceful way in which American citizens have been asked to accept an inferior, selfish notion of what the United States of America can be - by their own inferior, selfish leaders, on both sides of the aisle. As an American citizen, a 'nobody', I am not buying this notion. The ladies and gentlemen in DC need to fix what is wrong with America. They need to pick a problem, start anywhere, and stand side-by-side as they did on the evening of September 1, 2001. Why? Because they can do it. And, because they owe that effort to the American people, other nations of the world, and their people.

Some of the mistakes the US has made can never be corrected. America is 'behind the times' with regard to the way in which the rest of the world 'thinks' and the ways in which we formulate and execute policies, nationally and internationally. We cannot afford to wait any longer for change in America; the rest of the world has already changed and indeed has begun to move forward in different directions, without regard for the US. In light of the US' actions and insistence upon conducting business in the same old and tired way, I cannot blame them at all.

Regarding the comments of Jason & Mun: The U.S. Field Artillery will always justify the use of WP and other Special Ordinance on the battlefield as necessary for the protection of our own forces. Their argument breaks down the moment that the battlefield moves into an urban setting with civillians in close proximity to the enemy combatants. Under those circumstances the use of both WP and HE rounds sould be (and are) internationally condemned. I spent 10 years in the US Army, all of them in the Field Artillery, and I can tell you this: The Field Artillery is a beaucracy. There is always someone else to blame when things go wrong. I have seen civillians accidentally fired upon by innacurate artillery in both Korea and the US. In both instances, no individual, only systems, were found at fault. Only when US Artillery lands on our own soldiers do individaul heads roll.

I don't blame our military for what they are doing in Iraq. Put in the same situations most of us would make similar decisions. I don't blame the US Government for Iraq. By their very nature, governments are as dishonest, immoral and unaccountable as they can get away with.

The blame for this war lies directly on the shoulders of the American People. Too many of us wanted revenge for 9/11 and it didn't matter who we took it out on, as long as they were Arab Muslims. Shame on the American People for allowing this to happen. We will be paying for it for a long, long time.

'Democracy Now' just ran another very informative in-depth segment,

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515223

on the US military's reportedly ANTIPERSONNEL use of WP in Fallujah operation, which IS outlawed under Chemical weapons conventions. DoD first denied use of WP, then admitted it was used in Fallujah, but not against personnel. Pentagon representatives were invited to appear on the and give their latest position on the Fallujah WP use issue, but angrily refused to do so, according to 'Democracy Now' host Amy Goodman.

These revelations always follow a standard pattern. First they deny doing it, and then - when it's proved that they did - they change tack and say it's ok to do.

The same thing happened with cluster bombs, with approved torture methods, and then with Mk77 napalm-type bombs.

What a pack of liars. If they think using these weapons and techniques is defensible, why did they initially deny doing it?

I know US citizens worship anything in uniform like brainwashed cultists.

But I have no respect for the US military. They are proven serial liars who attack civilians because they know they're losing.

My Jack Russell terrier knows more about honour and courage than the whole bloody Pentagon does. What a sorry excuse for an Army.

It is good to finially see people talking about this. It happened last November and was reported on various websites at that time. I first read about it on Aljazeera last November.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/24EBE5BB-CA3F-462B-8279-546BC1D9B7E6.htm

In early 2005 there were more articles, though Journalists, other than thoses carefully controlled embedded ones, were not allowed into the city

3-3-2005
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7216

3-20-2005
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6890A8DA-AF79-45AD-BB4F-42C060978A07.htm

Photos were posted by Dahr Jamail that had been taken my the US military and being passed around to people to help identify relatives.

1-18-2005 Jamail reported that americans were destroying houses and removing soil in the Jolan area where the, what the people believed was napalm was used.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/000173.php

before that he had told about what the people fromFallujaha were saying, which included descriptions of the bombing.

One of the descriptions of these same weapons by the same refugee from
Fallujah said, "These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt
for half an hour. They used these near the train tracks. You could hear
these dropped from a large airplane and the bombs were the size of a
tank. When anyone touched those fires, their body burned for hours."

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000122.php

On December 9th of 2004 he posted a gallery of photos:
,
many of which are included in the new RAI television documentary about incendiary weapons having been used in Fallujah. (see that video if you have not already)
The photo that I remember the most of that collection is of the dead boy holding a white flag.

On Dec 3,2005 Dhar reported about what people were saying who were in the city while it was being attacked.
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000145.php

Dec 5, 2005 More reports of what the people of Fallujah were saying. Note that they did not believe any of the US propaganda of why they were being attacked and killed.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/2003_11_30.php

Another interesting topic has to do with the guy our US government has tried to turn into our latest villian to hate, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and how has been made by us into a hero, and the question, Does Al zarqawi really exist? He was supposedly on of the excuses for attacking the people of Fallujah.
Dahr Jamail did some research on the guy.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=4481

It is good that this issue has finially started to come into the open and maybe people will see that our government is hiding so much from us and this is only a small portion that is going on and being prevented from being reported on. I have tried writing to various reporters and newpapers since last November to make sure they knew about what happened in Fallujah, but for some reason they either did not believe it, just thought it was not important enough to report, or possibly?were prevented from reporting it?.

As a former artilleryman and Iraq war vet, I have to say that Mr. Atkins' analysis with regards specifically to the use of WP rings false. He characterizes the use of WP as
"the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way. It is a representation of a losing strategy." He then goes further to suggest that it was used primarily as a means to demoralize the enemy,to induce "shock and awe" in his words.
If I had a problem with entrenched fighters who I was not getting effects on with HE rounds, it would be an obvious recourse to a field artilleryman to employ the "shake and bake" fire mission as described in Field Artillery Magazine (though in this case it is "bake and shake") Doctrinally, one of the most effective uses of this particular fire order is on a petroleum depot, as the HE rounds will pierce the storage tanks or blivets, while the WP will ignite it. I also read that American tankers used WP rounds as an integral part of a technique to reduce the Germans fortified positions in the hedgerows during the Battle of Normandy.
In reference to Mr. Arkins "shock and awe" comment, it rests on the presupposition that to demoralize the enemy is inherently illegitimate and ineffective. In the cruel nature and language of war, this tactic may have provided our forces with the fringe benefit of demoralizing an enemy who previously felt a certain sense of psychological safety while entrenched, but I very much doubt that this was the primary purpose of the technique: rather, the purpose was to kill.
The U.S. military certainly didn't do itself any favors by what appears to be a cover-up of the information. It does beg the question: why the apparent cover-up? Though I am speculating, it may not have been a cover-up at all -- the higher-ups who initially answered the question may not have been aware that this technique was used in Fallujah (trust me - it's not like everyone reads Field Artillery magazine). However, if the military did know that this technique was used, why the cover-up? Well, I think that it's largely them taking the chance to avoid this controversy we see before us currently. For most people idea of burning alive from WP is much more damaging to the imagination than is being blown apart by HE or struck by a bullet (though the latter are plenty scary when it's an immediate possibility). Add to that the added controversy of using this munition in an urban area, and it's clear that given the choice, the military would rather have let sleeping dogs lie than confront this issue head-on. Let me be clear here:
I am not defending the war, the neo-cons, or any other group. I wasn't there in Fallujah in November, and I don't know what the possibility of civilian casualties from any artillery rounds fired into the city would have been. But I do know that Mr. Arkins' analysis regarding WP is far off the mark.

I suppose you're right Jason, that WP is no more illegal than HE, in that you're really not supposed to be shelling civilians with either of them.

Your comments about WP as a marker are irrelevant. We already know the tactical doctrine being applied here. It's the one mentioned in Field Artillery magazine, which you neglect to include in your list.

Falluja would still be a war crime whatever weapons were used, because it was a collective reprisal in which hundreds of civilians were deliberately killed in revenge for the death of four contractors.

I say deliberately because it's a known fact that thousands of civilians including kids were prevented from leaving the city, forced to re-enter the city, or machine-gunned as they tried to swim the Euphrates.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138376,00.html

There's no point talking about collateral damage or minimising casualties when you have herded civilians into the fire zone prior to bombardment.

If they were forced back into the city - and the Army admits they were - the only possible reason is because it wanted to expose them to danger.

Are you going to pretend, Jason, that preventing refugees from leaving a combat zone is not a major war crime? Have you got anything smart to say about that?

It's your Army that's a disgrace. You deliberately took out your frustrations on civilians.

Falluja was a criminal act in a criminal war.

The only reason the US Army and its supporters can go on talking about "minimising civilian casualties" is because you're a bunch of hypocrites who really don't mind if the things you say are true or not.

You can add it to the prevalent myth that "the terrorists have killed far more Iraqi civilians than coalition forces."

In fact, Iraq Body Count's figures prove it's the other way around. Moreover, the US forces' victims contain a higher proportion of women and children.

I am an infantry officer and Iraq war veteran. WP is unquestionably legal, and ok to fire at any target you may fire an HE round at.

Doctrinally, WP is normally used as an obscurant, to screen friendly movements, or as a marking round. It's used as a marking round because it's easier to see and adjust onto the target than HE, especially at night.

Also, WP allows you to use a much less lethal munition to adjust rounds onto the target than HE, and as such enables you to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties.

WP also serves as an important marker for the controlling of tactical air, and allows observers to direct airstrikes with greater precision. Again, which allows us to focus firepower on the bad guys and minimize collateral damage.

As a marker for aviation, WP is also useful in preventing the accidental bombing of coalition troops.

You can also use it to blind an enemy's optics or night vision capabilities, or to cause him to believe his position is about to be assaulted, forcing him to move (and therefore become vulnerable to direct fires and HE)
Oh, and as a battlefield marker, it is specificially exempt from regulation as a chemical weapon.

WP ordnance without question burns through clothing. Those people who are basing their opinions on pictures from the SAI video are simply showing their ignorance. There was nothing in that video that could not have been caused by an HE round or by normal decomposition.

Atkin is wholly ignorant of the weapon and the applicable doctrine here. His column is a poorly researched and sloppily thought out disgrace.

Jason

A.P. Davis: "It was this information that made me decide that the photos and claims were false to the hilt. You don't suppose that the photos were supplied by the old Saddam fighters and that just maybe they are some of the photos and videos that were taken of Saddam's chemical and bio tests on his own people, do you? Any chance of that? Maybe."

You American conservatives always claim to mistrust government, but I have never come across people who are more trusting in government than US rightwingers. When the State speaks, you guys lap it up like dogs.

The US and Britain both denied using cluster bombs in built-up areas, and you no doubt believed them. Then it was proved, and they admitted it. But I'm sure you never heard about that.

The US also denied using Mk77 incendiaries in Iraq. They even denied it to the British Government. Then they were caught and had to admit it. The British defence minister Geoff Hoon had to apologise in a letter to MPs, saying yes they had used it but he'd been misinformed by the Americans.

Then the US denied using White Phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja. A statement denying it may still be found on the State Dept website. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

But the statement has now had a note added because, oh dear, it turns out they've been caught lying again. That's the funniest thing about your denial. If you'd read Arkin's article properly you'd know that the US government has now admitted using White Phosporus as a weapon in Falluja. Read the link above (properly) if you don't believe me.

Which means that this time you're out there protesting the US government's innocence even after they themselves have admitted their guilt. Truly, you are one loyal little minion of the State. Like a cheated-on wife with no self-esteem, you keep crawling back to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co even though they've been caught lying to you more times than any of us can remember.

You are indeed a worthy member of the US Republican Party, surely the largest concentration of sheer stupidity in the history of humanity.

What a bunch of good little Germans you are. No wonder the Federal Government has grown exponentially under Bush. You worship the State and hang on its every word like uncritical children.

Freedom-loving my arse. The Russians are more freedom-loving than American conservatives. Their State lied to them for decades. But at least they weren't stupid enough to believe it. At least they didn't ENJOY being treated like idiots.

You lot aren't worthy or capable of spreading freedom because you don't understand it yourselves. I watch today's Republicans dancing in formation like North Korean schoolgirls as Washington plays the tune, and I cringe. America has become the land of big government and small people.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Islamic Republic

You make a valid point. Real Democracy has obviously not arrived in Iraq. The reason I raised the possibility of having an election to settle the issue of our presence was to provoke thought from all sides of this issue. For many reasons we cannot allow the Iraqi people vote on this issue. It is so easy for Secretary Rice to say the US has the support of the Iraqi people when there is no way to prove her wrong.