US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[Skyhunter]

This video is graphic, not for those with a weak stomach.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

 

[russ_watters]

We've had the napalm/Mk77 discussion before. Do a search for it.

 

[cronxeh]

We've had the napalm/Mk77 discussion before. Do a search for it.

this has nothing to do with that?

 

[gravenewworld]

stupid The Entire Video Clip OF THE NAPALM Was Just From The Movie "hearts And Minds" Which Was A Documentary On The Vietnam War (it Also Won An Academy Award). These Are Not From Iraq. Do You Believe Any Old Garbage You Find On The Internet?

 

[cronxeh]

you see, unless they clearly specified "burning types of bombs or ammunitions or rockets" - to which I'm sure the US would never sign - then they can use any mixture of organic molecules. This is all psychological.

 

[Art]

stupid The Entire Video Clip OF THE NAPALM Was Just From The Movie "hearts And Minds" Which Was A Documentary On The Vietnam War (it Also Won An Academy Award). These Are Not From Iraq. Do You Believe Any Old Garbage You Find On The Internet?

The opening clip is from Vietnam as the commentary says. The rest of the video including the burned bodies is from Iraq unless you think Vietnam is a country of desert and mosques populated by Arabs.
One would almost think your post is a deliberate cynical attempt to rubbish a perfectly valid report. I wonder why?

 

[Skyhunter]

We've had the napalm/Mk77 discussion before. Do a search for it.

Please watch the entire video before commenting.

 

[Burnsys]

Hey,,, are you talking about Napalm or about: WHITE PHOSPHORUS use in fallujha??

This video is not from a movie, It's REAL
mms://mediaserver.kataweb.it/repubblica/esteri/2005/fallujah_high.wmv

PD: i hope the administrators use the policy fairly in all members, not only on maxs and TSM...

 

[russ_watters]

Please watch the entire video before commenting.

No. The first 30 seconds was all Vietnam-era propaganda, and the video is several minutes long. I will not sit through several minutes of propaganda, searching for a point.

Besides, there is no need: the text under the video makes it's point and it's point is both old, and has been argued to death. There are 5 (related) points:

1. Did the official lie or was he just mistaken about the use of Mk77s. (debatable)
2. Is a Mk77 "napalm"? (No.)
3. Is napalm a "chemical weapon"? (No.)
4. Is the Mk77 a chemical weapon? (No.)
5. Is the Mk77 an illegal weapon? (No.)

Go through the previous argument and if you have anything new to add, by all means make your argument.

 

[Astronuc]

The video is quite distressing, and I am heartsick over such horrible acts against women and children.

The point of the video is not the use of naplam specifically, but the use of incendiary (napalm) and chemical weapons against 'civilians'.

And that is apparently what happened in Fallujah. Apparently, the Army decided ALL persons were targets - including women and children.

In addition to some insurgents (legitimate targets in a military conflict), there are many bodies of women and children, some burned, but others ashen grey without burn injuries - much like the images of Kurds gassed by Hussein's air force. However, that ashen color can be caused by a blast wave (severe concussive force).

Perhaps the use of Vietnam footage at first is a turn off for some, but it is pretty accurate. As in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, those dropping bombs do not check to see if the target is civilian or military. Those bombs are simply dropped based on orders.

As far as I know, over 600 civilians were killed in Fallujah, perhaps more than the number of insurgents, and this is despite the comment of a US general that there were no civilian deaths or casualties.

It is also alleged that US/Iraqi intelligence have been confiscating any media coverage of the assault on Fallujah. This seems to be Mi Lai all over again.

 

[Skyhunter]

The video is quite distressing, and I am heartsick over such horrible acts against women and children.
The point of the video is not the use of naplam specifically, but the use of incendiary (napalm) and chemical weapons against 'civilians'.
And that is apparently what happened in Fallujah. Apparently, the Army decided ALL persons were targets - including women and children.
In addition to some insurgents (legitimate targets in a military conflict), there are many bodies of women and children, some burned, but others ashen grey without burn injuries - much like the images of Kurds gassed by Hussein's air force. However, that ashen color can be caused by a blast wave (severe concussive force).
Perhaps the use of Vietnam footage at first is a turn off for some, but it is pretty accurate. As in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, those dropping bombs do not check to see if the target is civilian or military. Those bombs are simply dropped based on orders.
As far as I know, over 600 civilians were killed in Fallujah, perhaps more than the number of insurgents, and this is despite the comment of a US general that there were no civilian deaths or casualties.
It is also alleged that US/Iraqi intelligence have been confiscating any media coverage of the assault on Fallujah. This seems to be Mi Lai all over again.

I am still somewhat in shock after viewing, because it is all to real. And it is all to now. This is not how humans should treat one another!

 

[PerennialII]

... always stunned how we can as a society be so inclined to war and 'mayhem', when the results seem to be the same and predictable - like in this very case. Suppose people come equipped with on/off switches for humaneness.

 

[Astronuc]

I am still somewhat in shock after viewing, because it is all too real. And it is all too now. This is not how humans should treat one another!

That's one reason why I will NEVER serve in any military.

Unfortunately, too many people (e.g. George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) seem to find such horrors acceptable.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are hold overs from the Vietnam era. Same story - different day.

 

[russ_watters]

Must be nice to know everything.

That way you can always have a definitive opinion, even when you don't know what you are talking about!

If you have some facts to present, present them, otherwise retract that!

Have you even read any of the previous thread yet?

I watched a few more minutes of the video - there is no coherent point being made about the Mk77 - it is a catch-all anti-war propaganda piece.

War is a terrible thing, guys - no one is arguing that. But lies and propaganda are not a good source for forming your opinions. So if you want to argue that war is terrible, you will get no argument. If you want to argue that the Mk77 is a terrible weapon, you will get no argument. If you want to argue that the Mk77 is a "chemical weapon" and that the US used "chemical weapons" in Fallujah, you'll get an argument, because neither is true.

 

[Burnsys]

If you have some facts to present, present them, otherwise retract that!
Have you even read any of the previous thread yet?
I watched a few more minutes of the video - there is no coherent point being made about the Mk77 - it is a catch-all anti-war propaganda piece.
War is a terrible thing, guys - no one is arguing that. But lies and propaganda are not a good source for forming your opinions.

Russ, do you find acceptable the us of WP over cities with civilian population?? (and not as a light in the night but as a way of exterminating everything that lives in a determinated area.)

mms://mediaserver.kataweb.it/repubblica/esteri/2005/fallujah_high.wmv

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, do you find acceptable the us of WP over cities with civilian population?? (and not as a light in the night but as a way of exterminating everything that lives in a determinated area.)
mms://mediaserver.kataweb.it/repubblica/esteri/2005/fallujah_high.wmv

What you are implying is not what it is used for, so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement. Make a plain, factual statement about how it is used and I will tell you if I agree with the practice.

To be more specific:

"over cities" - implies that it is dropped from airplanes as an airborne incendiary. AFAIK, it is only used in grenade and signaling artillery/tracer form.
"as a way of exterminating everything that lives in a determinated area" - implies a wide coverage weapon weapon, designed to kill. That's not what grenades are like and not what incendiary grenades are for.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is the previous conversation, for those interested:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80197&highlight=napalm

After it spiraled out of control, El Hombre Invisible wrote-up a good summary:

This discussion seems to have spiralled into semantic sophistry for the sole purpose of one-upmanship, and to be honest Art [or Skyhunter...], the tone you laid out in the OP made this inevitable. If you want people to debate the news itself, and not argue their stance on your appraisal of it, you should be a little more objective, at least in the OP. I'm not dissing you or arguing against your position, but starting the thread with accusations of hypocrisy and lies is more likely to generate debate on your wording than on the actual topic in hand.

On the other hand, I think the lengths people are going to in the cause of denial are pretty pathetic. The call for official government statements is naive at best, since if any are forthcoming they will come with all the usual spin, propaganda and tactical omissions. An amount of cynicism is healthy. Also, a lot of the links posted by both sides of the debate are either laughable (Sunday Mirror?!?) or don't really provide the reposte the posters think they do.

On the other other hand, bear the following in mind:

1. The BBC site, the only link posted so far I'd assign any credibility, does not say these weapons are used in Fallujah, but in the campaign as a whole. The intention is stated to determine WHETHER the weapons were used in Fallujah. On the other other other hand (I am a chimp), this means that posting US govt-sourced articles stating that they are NOT used in Fallujah does nothing to contradict the BBC story. This question is pending.

2. Napalm and the Mark-77 are not illegal weapons. Their use is restricted under UN protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention. The US has NOT signed the protocol. There is obviously a moral issue here, but it seems at present the US is not breaking any international law by using napalm or its ilk even in the most heavily populated areas - such as Baghdad, where it seems it has been used, or used near. Iraq, on the other hand, DID sign UN treaties banning several weapons it had stockpiled and CONTINUED to stockpile long after the first Iraq war. There is no evidence that they were used, but certainly Iraq did break ratified treaties while the US did not. Therefore accusations of hypocrisy are not accurate.

3. The US government denied using napalm. The US government did NOT deny using firebombs in general. The term 'napalm' is used in the US military to describe MK-77. The US military have used the word 'napalm' in its inventory of weapons dispatched. The US military has used the word 'napalm' to describe a weapon that has been used in Iraq. The term 'napalm' is clearly used by the international community to describe MK-77. In fact, the only body who does not describe MK-77 as 'napalm' is the US government, AFTER accusations of using napalm were made (though the UK government, keen on spin as it is, will no doubt follow suit). Kind of like describing prisoners of war as 'enemy combatants' after accusations of breach of the Geneva conventions were made. It seems a typical tactic of the Bush administration to rename things that have negative connotations and think this excuses their actions. Let's call a spade a spade - MK-77 is a type of napalm. The US denial of napalm use is irrelevant - it's just spin. It doesn't make them liars - just a**holes.

As I see it, the real issues here are:

1. Once again the Bush administration has left it's closest allies hanging out to dry. By denying the use of napalm, when the US military has referred to weapons that HAVE been used as napalm, the US government has not considered the repurcussions in other countries, or did and simply did not care. There's no way to prove that the US were, when denying the use of napalm, also denying the use of MK-77, so I don't see much point in arguing over it. However, it is blatently obvious that after the accusations of napalm use were made, the US government started making distinctions that no-one else, including it's own military, the UN and its allies, make. We already know attitude adopted by the Bush administration when it gets it's allies in trouble, following it's admission that Iraq 'probably' did not have WMDs, a statement it made without bothering to give the rest of the coalition a prior heads-up on. So the Bush administration can go poke it. But the only people who will see this disgusting unloyalty are the ones who already thought Bush administration could go poke it. POKE IT!

2. There is a judgement to be made on the US for using what amounts to napalm not only at all, but in populated areas in or close to Baghdad and, if it transpires they were used in Fallujah also, all the more so. But this is the government that has always continued to use methods and tools thought barbaric to the rest of the world and/or supports their past, present and future use by denying the side-effects they have (agent orange, depleted uranium, cluster bombs). What's new? Only the American people can put its government in line, and 52% of them can't be wrong. Can they?

I don't quite agree with everything in that post (specifically, the last part), but otherwise it is a good summary of the issue.

Skyhunter, you signed up after that conversation ended, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't realize what you were walking into when you posted this. But now that you have the link, please read it before proceeding. The site you posted essentially lied to you and fed you propaganda and you fell for it. And more importantly: apply some critical thinking before so hastily buying into, then posting the contents of a propaganda site here.

 

[Burnsys]

What you are implying is not what it is used for, so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement. Make a plain, factual statement about how it is used and I will tell you if I agree with the practice.
To be more specific:
"over cities" - implies that it is dropped from airplanes as an airborne incendiary. AFAIK, it is only used in grenade and signaling artillery/tracer form.
"as a way of exterminating everything that lives in a determinated area" - implies a wide coverage weapon. That's not what grenades are like.

You didn't see the video in the link i posted right? they where launched by artillery over the city of falluja, please look at the video, and you will note that they are not used as an artillery tracer but as some kind of WP cluster bomb.

Again, LOOK AT THE VIDEO.. (Till the end, there you can see what is the real use.)

 

[Skyhunter]

If you have some facts to present, present them, otherwise retract that!
Have you even read any of the previous thread yet?
I watched a few more minutes of the video - there is no coherent point being made about the Mk77 - it is a catch-all anti-war propaganda piece.
War is a terrible thing, guys - no one is arguing that. But lies and propaganda are not a good source for forming your opinions. So if you want to argue that war is terrible, you will get no argument. If you want to argue that the Mk77 is a terrible weapon, you will get no argument. If you want to argue that the Mk77 is a "chemical weapon" and that the US used "chemical weapons" in Fallujah, you'll get an argument, because neither is true.

I have not read the other thread but I will.

This is not however about using MK77 in Baghdad. This is video from Fallujah where white phosphorus was used indiscriminately as a weapon.

Again, I would ask you to watch the video before commenting.

 

[Bilal]

This is a documentary film which was prepared by an Italian governmental TV (RAI). Currently this is the main topic in Arabic media.

http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2005/11/08/18428.htm

 

[Kakarot]

I wonder what will happen to those soldiers for speaking out like that? Also if they didn't use those mentioned weapons why were the people burned like that?

 

[devil-fire]

im sure there is some kind of expression that applys to replying to threads based on their tital instead of their content but i can't think of it.


the immagry and content of the video are disturbing because of the indiscriminate suffering and is typical of many 'horror of war' videos. unfortunatly it is a message ignored by those who are not effected, more often then not.

as for the video itself i thought the poor audio quality subtracted from its informative content. i couldn't understand most of the interview with the middle eastern jurnalist or the former liberal politician.

 

[TRCSF]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051108/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc

 

[Burnsys]

What you are implying is not what it is used for, so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement. Make a plain, factual statement about how it is used and I will tell you if I agree with the practice.
To be more specific:
"over cities" - implies that it is dropped from airplanes as an airborne incendiary. AFAIK, it is only used in grenade and signaling artillery/tracer form.
"as a way of exterminating everything that lives in a determinated area" - implies a wide coverage weapon weapon, designed to kill. That's not what grenades are like and not what incendiary grenades are for.

WP in action.

Frames from the video.

 

[russ_watters]

You didn't see the video in the link i posted right? they where launched by artillery over the city of falluja, please look at the video, and you will note that they are not used as an artillery tracer but as some kind of WP cluster bomb.

Again, LOOK AT THE VIDEO.. (Till the end, there you can see what is the real use.)

I looked at the video clip you posted and found that portion of the clip in the original video so I could hear what they were saying in English. Their "former marine" calls white phosphorus a "chemical weapon", and specifically points to the effects of it's combustion products. He's wrong.

But as to the specific uses shown in the clip, there are two: one was a single flare dropped into what looked like a town-square (an open area between buildings), clearly to illuminate it. There is nothing at all wrong with that - that is it's intended purpose.

The other showed multiple flares being fired in a burst, ie, in a "starburst" mortar. There is no way to tell who fired them or why - no way to prove your assertion that it was meant to be used as if it were an incendiary cluster-bomb, nor is there any way to verify what the target (if, indeed, there was a target) was. So that part of your question is impossible answer, unless you can provide some facts to back up your assertion.

 

[russ_watters]

I have not read the other thread but I will.
This is not however about using MK77 in Baghdad. This is video from Fallujah where white phosphorus was used indiscriminately as a weapon.

The video is also about the Mk77 and the two articles directly below it are about the Mk77, so it was reasonable to assume that that's what you were talking about - especially considering you made no comment whatsoever in your op. If you are just talking about white phosphorus and not the Mk77, we can move on to that, but it is your fault, not mine, that this thread started off on the wrong foot. This is a perfect example of why just posting links with no comment is bad form for a discussion forum.

Again, I would ask you to watch the video before commenting.

No, Skyhunter - here I at least made an effort to find your point and I guessed wrong. I repeat: this is a perfect example of why just posting links with no comment is bad form for a discussion forum. You need to, at the very least, paraphrase YOUR POINT and your argument. I'm not going to build your case for you.

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder who contributed to that?

Thank you King of the World for your forgiveness, and in the meantime we will all get right to that!

Critical thinking? You might try that some time yourself. As long as members abide by PF guidelines, I believe they can post threads of their choosing. If you do not like a thread, you do not have to read it or post in it. The rest of us would like to carry on now, thank you.

Stop with the attitude, Informal Logic. I don't break it out often, but don't forget who you are talking to.

Regarding that other thread - why don't you read it? It is 7 pages long and you will find that the one post I made was just asking for a couple of clarifications from another mentor - that thread garnered an unprecidented response from mentors because of how bad the OP was.

 

[russ_watters]

im sure there is some kind of expression that applys to replying to threads based on their tital instead of their content but i can't think of it.

The only content directly from Skyhunter is the title itself.

 

[devil-fire]

...I repeat: this is a perfect example of why just posting links with no comment is bad form for a discussion forum. You need to, at the very least, paraphrase YOUR POINT and your argument. I'm not going to build your case for you.

whats got people hostile is that you were eager to built the case against him when, as you implyed, he had no case to begine with, there was just only a video link. i mean you said "I will not sit through several minutes of propaganda, searching for a point." when you assumed what the point was so you could take opposition to it.

it sounds like you would like to crush the thread is all.

 

[Informal Logic]

Stop with the attitude, Informal Logic. I don't break it out often, but don't forget who you are talking to.
Regarding that other thread - why don't you read it? It is 7 pages long and you will find that the one post I made was just asking for a couple of clarifications from another mentor - that thread garnered an unprecidented response from mentors because of how bad the OP was.

I did not start the hostile attitude - Just read what you post. And as I stated, we can all choose which threads we want to read or post in. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not aware that being a mentor means being a dictator about these things.

 

[russ_watters]

whats got people hostile is that you were eager to built the case against him when, as you implyed, he had no case to begine with, there was just only a video link. i mean you said "I will not sit through several minutes of propaganda, searching for a point." when you assumed what the point was so you could take opposition to it.

I didn't assume anything, I drew a conclusion from the article linked and the thread title.

...it sounds like you would like to crush the thread is all.

What I wanted to crush was a major misconception on the part of Skyhunter, and a lie and propaganda on the part of the people who made the video and link. And my searching for Skyhunter's point, aside, Skyhunter made an assertion that the US used chemical wepons in Falluja. That assertion is factually wrong. It doesn't matter if Skyhunter was talking about the Mk77 or phosphorus - it's wrong either way.

But if there is something else to the phosphorus issue, fine. I'll post nothing else until Skyhunter makes a point. But I suspect this thread will die a quiet death, just like the last one did after everyone realized there was nothing to it.

 

[Art]

Stop with the attitude, Informal Logic. I don't break it out often, but don't forget who you are talking to.
Regarding that other thread - why don't you read it? It is 7 pages long and you will find that the one post I made was just asking for a couple of clarifications from another mentor - that thread garnered an unprecidented response from mentors because of how bad the OP was.

Ahem I started that other thread and here is the OP you are trying to rubbish.

The Ultimate In Hypocrisy
Having gone to war on the grounds that Iraq had illegal weapons, US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances (which was banned by the UN in 1980) were true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
And more hypocrisy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uni...ss_destruction

After 7 pages it was decided that;
Point 1.
MK77's are napalm under a different name and are even listed on the US army's inventories as naplam. Napalm is illegal but by using semantics MK77 isn't (mainly because it's spelled differently )
Point 2.
The US gov't definitely did lie to the British defence minister when asked if they had used napalm OR MK77s in Iraq. (I provided Hansard as an impeccable source to prove that)
Point 3.

As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

Now perhaps the US gov't sneaks under the bar by changing a molecule here and there but the fact remains the US used the very same type of weapons against the Iraqis whose (non-existant) possession of which was used as the justification for the war.

As evidenced by the strength of feeling in the posts in this thread it appears all decent minded people are disgusted by the use of these weapons and attempts by some to change the subject by playing semantics about what is and is not illegal or by complaining about the length of the video clip does not change that simple fact.

 

[edward]

A firebomb by any other name is still a firebomb.

I would tend to believe that no actual ? chemical weapons were used in Fallujah. The many reports coming out of the city are most likely due to the fact that the air was so intensely saturated with phosphorous smoke. We also still use tear gas and nausea gas. And also whatever it was that was pumped into the Branch Dividean compound in Waco is probably still around.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk77.htm

And yes MK77 MOD5 incendiary bomb is still in the U.S. arsenal. Please see page 9 in the pdf link.

http://www.afsc.army.mil/ac/aais/apbi/lai016%20two%20year%20section.pdf

The ironic thing about fallujah is that after destroying the thriving city of 300,000 the General in charge stated " we have broken the back of the insergency. How wrong that man was.

 

[Evo]

Ahem I started that other thread and here is the OP you are trying to rubbish. After 7 pages it was decided that;
Point 1.
MK77's are napalm under a different name and are even listed on the US army's inventories as naplam. Napalm is illegal but by using semantics MK77 isn't (mainly because it's spelled differently )

No, people generically referring to something as napalm does not make it napalm. People make incorrect references all of the time.

Point 2.
The US gov't definitely did lie to the British defence minister when asked if they had used napalm OR MK77s in Iraq. (I provided Hansard as an impeccable source to prove that)

We will never know what one person told another. The ONLY fact is what was PUBLICLY known at the time, which is not what the UK defense minister claimed, shame on him.

[Point 3.
As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

 

[edward]

Actually it is all in the semantics. The military in the field still uses the term "Napalm"
I would imagine that is because it is easier than saying "MK77 MOD5 jellied jetfuel mixed with polystyrene incendiary bomb"

The Brutal Weapons
The long-feared US ground assault on Fallujah began on Mon. 8 Nov., with air and artillery attacks, including the dropping of eight 2,000-pound bombs. “Usually we keep the gloves on,” said the head of the US 1st Infantry Division’s Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. “For this operation, we took the gloves off.” ‘"Some artillery guns fired "white phosphorous" rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin.’ (Washington Post, 10 Nov., p. A01) ‘White phosphorus shells lit up the sky as armour drove through the breach and sent flaming material on to suspect insurgent haunts.’ (Telegraph, 9 Nov., p. 1)

http://vitw.org/archives/667

As for the white phosphorus there is a brilliant flash when it explodes, but it is not used as someone mentioned "to light up an area" magnesium flares do that. What matters now is that the entire world, with the exception of a few people in the USA, does believe that we used white phosphorus.