Winamp & Shoutcast Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Winamp & Shoutcast Forums (http://forums.winamp.com/index.php)
-   Breaking News (http://forums.winamp.com/forumdisplay.php?f=80)
-   -   RAI tv documentary: Fallujah - The Concealed Massacre (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=230472)

gaekwad2 8th November 2005 18:17
RAI tv documentary: Fallujah - The Concealed Massacre
 
Quote:
ROME. In soldier slang they call it Willy Pete. The technical name is white phosphorus. In theory its purpose is to illumine enemy positions in the dark. In practice, it was used as a chemical weapon in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. And it was used not only against enemy combatants and guerrillas, but again innocent civilians. The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. An investigation by RAI News 24, the all-news Italian satellite television channel, has pulled the veil from one of the most carefully concealed mysteries from the front in the entire US military campaign in Iraq.

A US veteran of the Iraq war told RAI New correspondent Sigfrido Ranucci this: I received the order use caution because we had used white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military slag it is called 'Willy Pete'. Phosphorus burns the human body on contact--it even melts it right down to the bone.

RAI News 24's investigative story, Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre, will be broadcast tomorrow on RAI-3 and will contain not only eye-witness accounts by US military personnel but those from Fallujah residents. A rain of fire descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and Fallujah resident.

I gathered accounts of the use of phosphorus and napalm from a few Fallujah refugees whom I met before being kidnapped, says Manifesto reporter Giuliana Sgrena, who was kidnapped in Fallujah last February, in a recorded interview. I wanted to get the story out, but my kidnappers would not permit it.

RAI News 24 will broadcast video and photographs taken in the Iraqi city during and after the November 2004 bombardment which prove that the US military, contrary to statements in a December 9 communiqué from the US Department of State, did not use phosphorus to illuminate enemy positions (which would have been legitimate) but instend dropped white phosphorus indiscriminately and in massive quantities on the city's neighborhoods.

In the investigative story, produced by Maurizio Torrealta, dramatic footage is shown revealing the effects of the bombardment on civilians, women and children, some of whom were surprised in their sleep.

The investigation will also broadcast documentary proof of the use in Iraq of a new napalm formula called MK77. The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997

Fallujah. La strage nascosta [Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre] will be shown on RAI News tomorrow November 8th at 07:35 (via HOT BIRDTM statellite, Sky Channel 506 and RAI-3), and rebroadcast by HOT BIRDTM satellite and Sky Channel 506 at 17:00 [5 pm] and over the next two days.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/11819/9522

Original article (Italian):
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/k/sezi...s/rainews.html

shakey_snake 8th November 2005 18:27
Aren't the Italians pissed at us because US soilders shot some retarded Italian woman who was driving full speed at a Checkpoint?

Mattress 8th November 2005 19:41
that's correct.

I have a hard time believeing this, as it hasn't been reported by any of the imbedded journalists that travel with the troops. you could claim intimidation or something but it's pretty obvious that the MSM will do whatever they can to paint US soldiers in a bad light and this certainly would have leaked before now if it had happened.

gaekwad2 8th November 2005 20:54
Erm,
Quote:
To become an embedded journalist a contract is signed giving the military control over the output of the journalist – total censorship.
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Embedded)

So much for embedded propagandists journalists.

Mattress 8th November 2005 21:07
certainly both sides have their propagandists journalists.

gaekwad2 8th November 2005 22:14
But the difference is, you're relying on ones that are known to be unreliable.
Expecting embedded journalists to report about possible US war crimes is, well, not very realistic.

Anyway, here are more details about the documentary from the BBC's website:
Quote:
The documentary begins with formerly classified footage of the Americans using napalm bombs during the Vietnam war.

It then shows a series of photographs from Falluja of corpses with the flesh burnt off but clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

Last December, the US state department issued a denial of what it called "widespread myths" about the use of illegal weapons in Falluja.

"Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," the US statement said.

However, the Rai film also alleges that Washington has systematically attempted to destroy filmed evidence of the alleged use of white phosphorus on civilians in Falluja.

Bilbo Baggins 8th November 2005 22:47
Oh noes! People died in a war. Our bad.

ElChevelle 9th November 2005 01:29
:blah:
People need to stick to videogame genocides.

gaekwad2 9th November 2005 09:34
Quote:
Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
Oh noes! People died in a war. Our bad.
Note to self: Remember that reaction the next time people in Britain get blown up, or western hostages get killed, or...

ertmann|CPH 9th November 2005 12:18
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Note to self: Remember that reaction the next time people in Britain get blown up, or western hostages get killed, or...
yeah...

so the appropriate response next time any member the "coalition of the willing" are subjected to terrorism, should be to shrug our shoulders, look puzzeled about peoples reaction, and respond; "they attacked a muslim country, people die in war, what's the big deal?"

xzxzzx 9th November 2005 20:44
Right... because using flares to illuminate a battlefield is exactly like blowing up a train station, or capturing and then killing civilians.

ertmann|CPH 9th November 2005 21:41
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Right... because using flares to illuminate a battlefield is exactly like blowing up a train station, or capturing and then killing civilians.
not at all, but if it's, as alleged, used as a weapon, against civilians, it's much much worse...

xzxzzx 10th November 2005 02:23
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
not at all, but if it's, as alleged, used as a weapon, against civilians, it's much much worse...
Ah. Quite true.

Mattress 10th November 2005 03:24
because I'm sure the use of white phosphorus against civilians was intentional, those scary women and children...

probably the terrorists were using the civilians as a shield.

Phyltre 10th November 2005 04:40
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Note to self: Remember that reaction the next time people in Britain get blown up, or western hostages get killed, or...
Imagine that. This is EXACTLY how I reacted to 9-11 and London.

rockouthippie 10th November 2005 07:17
I really doubt that news report.

These weapons are not in the standard arsenal or either the army or the navy.

I'm not saying that the army couldn't or wouldn't violate weapons laws. The thing here is that there was no reason to. This was a standard mission. The army doesn't train for using alternative weapons such as phosphorus and phosgene. They haven't for decades.

This being a pretty normal "send the bad guys to Allah" mission, I'm pretty sure they just used the normal means of blowing an enemy to hell.

You don't train for years to do things one way, and then change everything when you confront an enemy.

Especially with no reason. And there isn't a reason. When we sprayed anthrax on the Koreans, we had a reason. We were getting our butts kicked.

gaekwad2 10th November 2005 11:04
Taking a city held by enemy fighters certainly isn't a simple standard mission, even more so if it's held by guerilla fighters and not regular troups.

Quote:
The first US-led siege of Falluja, a city of 300,000 people, resulted in a defeat for Coalition forces. Prior to the second siege in November, its citizens were given two choices: leave the city or risk dying as enemy insurgents.
...
Under threat of a new siege, an estimated 50,000 families or 250,000 people fled Falluja. They fled with the knowledge that they would live as refugees with few or no resources. They left behind fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, as males between the ages of 15 and 45 were denied safe passage out of the city by US-led forces.
...
Preceding the siege, journalists were prevented from entering the city, the main hospital was seized by US forces and access denied to the wounded. The population was subjected to daily aerial bombardments. The use of cluster bombs in urban areas was recorded. Doctors reported seeing patients whose skin was melted from exposure to phosphorous bombs. Water and electricity were cut off and people quickly ran out of food as they were trapped in their homes by sniper fire. Families trying to flee the devastated city were executed, including a family of five, shot down trying to cross the river to safety; their murder was witnessed by an AP photographer. With few independent journalists reporting on the carnage, the international humanitarian community in exile and the Red Cross and Red Crescent prevented from entering the besieged city, the world was forced to rely on reporting from journalists embedded with US forces. In the US press, we saw casualties reported for Falluja as follows: number of US soldiers dead; number of Iraqi soldiers dead; number of "guerillas" or "insurgents" dead. Nowhere were the civilian casualties reported in those first weeks.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7883.htm
(not an unbiased source, but then the US media aren't either)

Mattress 10th November 2005 15:18
here's some info debunking this BS reporting:

Crow: The Other White Meat

Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims

Quote:
From the first link:
WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.
Quote:
Most of the Fallujah operation was conducted in daylight, so the primary use of WP would have been as an obscurant. WP especially from mortars would serve no useful destructive purpose (like an HE round). Technically, in this employment roll, WP would be a tactic, not a weapon – in that it would not be fired with the expectation of killing the enemy. If the enemy was inside a building WP would be wholly ineffective as a weapon employed to neutralize/kill him...

In your defense, Sites and any other reporters close at hand did not report any massive use of WP. It would seem to me that if the Marines had used massive amounts of WP rounds; something out of the ordinary as compared to tactics previously employed, there would have been reporter comments. Not comments condemning the use of chemical weapons, but comments about the employment of an unseen and unusual tactic. Those comments were not forthcoming.
Not that this will really change any minds, how many people still believe that over 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq?

zootm 10th November 2005 15:47
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Not that this will really change any minds, how many people still believe that over 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq?
Still? When did anyone ever believe that?

I find this is at least trying to be objective, though.

Mattress 10th November 2005 15:50
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Still? When did anyone ever believe that?

I find this is at least trying to be objective, though.
When some report came out with data taken from civilian casualtys among some of the most violent areas of baghdad and extrapolated it to the entire country. It was exceptionally poor research if it can even be called that. But some people still believe it.

zootm 10th November 2005 17:31
Meh, people will believe anything. Some people still believe that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, too.

rockouthippie 10th November 2005 18:12
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Taking a city held by enemy fighters certainly isn't a simple standard mission, even more so if it's held by guerilla fighters and not regular troups.
I think that would be a typical mission. The army does train for an urban combat role.

gaekwad2 10th November 2005 18:15
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
here's some info debunking this BS reporting:

Crow: The Other White Meat

Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
Then I guess those comments from your first link are BS too?
Quote:
[PDF file] on artillery use from the March/April edition of the US Army's "Field Artillery Magazine."

. . . "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

Embedded reporter describing "shake and bake" WP use in Fallajuh:

"The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."
Quote:
Actually the March-April 2004 issue of Field Artillery magazine

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previ.../PAGE24-30.pdf

and the May-June 2004 issue of Infantry magazine,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...93/ai_n6366546
both DoD publications, confirm the offensive use of WP. The Field Artllerly issue confirms its use in Fallujah.

shakey_snake 10th November 2005 18:48
Quote:
WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals.
You're not allowed to fire .50 caliber rounds at an enemy to kill him either. But, you can shoot .50 caliber rounds at him to "disable his equipment". Of course, the most obvious way to disable a personal's equipment is to kill him.

This sort of double-speak has been used by everyone to get around Geneva laws since they were created. If I can "shake 'n bake" someone who's shooting at me and take them out, I sure as heck would do it. I know he'd do the same thing.
And if someone wanted to give me shit about it, I'd tell them to fuck off-- they wern't out there under fire.

War is War. Things like civilian causualties happen.
Letting yourself get bothered by this sort of thing is a waste of time.

Mattress 10th November 2005 19:12
Also, most of the people they're showing as 'victims' of the WP, at least in the Independent, are not victims of WP. They're claiming that WP burns it's victims skin but leaves the clothes untouched. This is simply false.

ertmann|CPH 11th November 2005 11:28
Apparently the Washington Post reported the story back in 2004 aswell, i can't find the story, only references to it...

anyone more lucky?

On an anthropological side of things, it's quite interresting, how the American audience (naturally) thinks of their army as the good guys, where as the rest of old NATO alliance press and population largely see the american army as someone who can not be trusted, and are quite capable of commiting such attrocities like this.

Regardless of the truth of these allegations, NATO will be dead and burried within the next 10-15 years if you ask me, European voters can't continue to rely on an American leadership in which they have a deep rooted distrust.

France is going to play this for all it's worth, and seek to transfer European defence responsibilities from NATO into the EU. With Spains Aznar gone, and Italys Berlusconi looking to be replaced by the EU's very own Romano Prodi. Washington only have Blair and the Poles left to defend American security leadership in Europe.

Interresting that...

rockouthippie 11th November 2005 19:28
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
.....how the American audience (naturally) thinks of their army as the good guys, where as the rest of old NATO alliance press and population largely see the american army as someone who can not be trusted, and are quite capable of commiting such attrocities like this.
I don't think the european opinion of americans in general is much different than that.

ertmann|CPH 11th November 2005 20:44
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
I don't think the european opinion of americans in general is much different than that.
Not true I think... from my experience americans aren't considered evil, just very narrow minded, naïve and arrogant, there is a difference...

It's a culture thing, alot of Europeans, unlike many Americans, don't like to believe anyone to be evil. This where alot of confrontations arise, where as americans in general see the world as black and white, the europeans see it as gray. Which is why Death penalty, for instance, is so outragous to us.

rockouthippie 11th November 2005 22:08
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Not true I think... from my experience americans aren't considered evil, just very narrow minded, naïve and arrogant, there is a difference...
I resemble that remark :)

As for the scum on death row..... yawn :)

ertmann|CPH 11th November 2005 22:35
i've been reading up on it ;)

re-read Rifkins The European Dream (very well written, and very informative book, even if you don't agree)

And Keagans Paradise and Power Which I offcourse don't agree with, at all, but he explains the american side of things in a great way...

it all inspired me to do a paper on European defence, quite intreaguing once you dig beneath the surface..

zootm 16th November 2005 10:51
Update:

Quote:
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.

Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.
All italics mine.

rockouthippie 16th November 2005 20:18
Yaaaa....aaawn!.

Whats really important is a a good breakfast. Some bacon and eggs and some good coffee. The navy has this, and the air force isn't too bad. Army coffee leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe a Marlboro too, if you can catch a fleeing terrorist for a light.

Bilbo Baggins 16th November 2005 23:17
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Note to self: Remember that reaction the next time people in Britain get blown up, or western hostages get killed, or...
Difference being, terrorist acts are not acts of war.

zootm 17th November 2005 09:17
Quote:
Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
Difference being, terrorist acts are not acts of war.
Doesn't make it any less acceptable, really. At least not in context.

You may have missed this (if you have a blind spot the approximate size and shape of the article, for example), but this wasn't a complaint about accidental or unavoidable death or suffering.

gaekwad2 17th November 2005 15:56
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...sphorus16.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November.
They still claim it wasn't used against civilians, but who'd expect them to admit that unless they'd absolutely have to?

But remember, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and therefore illegal regardless of whether it's used against civilians or insurgents.

zootm 17th November 2005 16:08
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...sphorus16.html
Doesn't say any more than the BBC article I posted in full a couple of posts up, but it's long and I guess I didn't really expect people to read it.

Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
But remember, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and therefore illegal regardless of whether it's used against civilians or insurgents.
Their official line is that they do not consider it a "chemical" weapon. I guess that the common criteria of causing damage to someone by poisoning and chemical burns wasn't good enough.

gaekwad2 17th November 2005 16:32
:o I completely missed that post.
(only saw rockouthippie's below it, which of course now makes more sense (in a way))

xzxzzx 17th November 2005 17:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Just thought that could be interesting.

ertmann|CPH 14th December 2005 10:06
just saw the documentary myself....

The american troops, the commanders in particular, involved in the attack on falujah, should have their skinned pealed of alive, dipped in a pool of sulphic acid, and just before they die, have a load of burning napalm dropped over their head. Then stick them on a pole, and put them up along the roads for laughing stock, and reinstate saddam - atleast he's something like 1% human being. Which is more than you can say for the american troops there. Sick fucks! :mad:

/walks of to do some yoga or something to calm down a bit...

[EDIT: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POST IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITTERALLY (except for maybe the 'sick fucks' part]

/a bit calmer:

how can anyone justify to knowingly, without being under direct threat, to burn children alive? how can anyone justify to walk into a hospital and start shooting wounded people lying totaly imobilised? how can anyone justify to bomb a whole city with a napalm like weapon, where people men between 18 - 65 are not allowed to leave under any circumstances? whoever was is in charge of that operation should be tried along with Saddam and the rest of regime.

shakey_snake 14th December 2005 13:21
Is the rest of Europe really as dumb as ertmann's above post?
[img]http://www.bigkidz******pic/feed001.jpg[/img]


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Copyright © 1999 - 2010 Nullsoft. All Rights Reserved.