Italian TV: US Used Chemical Weapons

[rjung]

@xtisme

And the efforts of the foaming at the mouth Bush bashing crowd to accept this story (and the obvious spin of ‘chemical weapons’) as gospel is…well, unsurprising.

Yes, because the videos are obvious forgeries, the photos were taken on Hollywood backlots, and the eyewitnesses are all leftovers from the Swift Boat campaign. :rolleyes:

@xtisme

Nor is it exactly stunning that a hack like you would call anyone who doesn’t agree with your interperation as a ‘Bush apologist’.

Struck a nerve, did I?

[Squink]

Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah (Field Artillery, Mar-Apr 2005)
That’s the subtitle.
The title: “TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR:” reveals this article to be way too technical for my “militaryspeakfoo”. However:

White Phosphorous. 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.

[rjung]

@xtisme

And the efforts of the foaming at the mouth Bush bashing crowd to accept this story (and the obvious spin of ‘chemical weapons’) as gospel is…well, unsurprising.

Once again, reality smacks the Bush apologists with a Clue-By-Four:

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon

Not from Al Jazheera, or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled “The Fight for Fallujah”:

“WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] 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.”

In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for “lethal missions.”

[Squink]

The article is a 1.2 Meg PDF.

[rjung]

Dang, beaten to the punch by Squink. Shakes fist :mad:

[Squink]

Hi rjung.
Watcha been reading?

[silenus]

Yeah, so? WP isn’t a chemical weapon, and so far, nobody has shown me that it was indiscriminately used against civilians. Until you can do that, you got nothing.

[kidchameleon]

@rjung

The efforts of the Bush apologists to spin this amuses me to no end.

What the hell are we supposed to use man?
Harsh language?

[rjung]

@Squink

Hi rjung.
Watcha been reading?

Going through The Wee Free Men for quotes, actually…

</hijack>

[Squink]

@silenus

Yeah, so? WP isn’t a chemical weapon, and so far, nobody has shown me that it was indiscriminately used against civilians. Until you can do that, you got nothing.

Not true. The Field Artillery magazine piece directly contradicts the State Department’s claims of 27 Jan 2005:

Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

Unless you want to claim “spider holes in the sky”?
Someone is lying to us about the use of phosphorous in Fallujah, and I don’t think it’s the magazine writers.

[kidchameleon]

@Squink

Not true. The Field Artillery magazine piece directly contradicts the State Department’s claims of 27 Jan 2005: Unless you want to claim “spider holes in the sky”?
Someone is lying to us about the use of phosphorous in Fallujah, and I don’t think it’s the magazine writers.

They could be using the phosporus grenades in the spider holes and the artillery pieces for illumination. That’s the impression I got.

[crowmanyclouds]

@kidchameleon

They could be using the phosporus grenades in the spider holes and the artillery pieces for illumination. That’s the impression I got.

March edition of Field Artillery Magazine? WP grenades?
“…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…”
So ya run up to the spider hole, drop your WP grenade, then stand there while arty drops a couple o’ HE’s on ya? :dubious:

[Squink]

@kidchameleon

They could be using the phosporus grenades in the spider holes and the artillery pieces for illumination.

We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

Sounds more like artillery missions than lobbing some grenades to me. YMV’s.

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@BobLibDem

The term “chemical weapon” wasn’t my invention, it came from Italian television and has been picked up and used by some mainstream media. If you don’t like the term, fine. But I’m not the only one using it.<snip>

I guess I’d call napalm a chemical weapon too. You may not. I’m less worried about the word than the effect.

Yeah, but the stated purpose of this board is fighting ignorance, and calling an incendiary weapon a chemical weapon is ignorant.

[silenus]

@Squink

Someone is lying to us about the use of phosphorous in Fallujah, and I don’t think it’s the magazine writers.

No argument. They have been using WP in an offensive manner. Again…so what? Yes, they lied when they said it was just for “illumination.” But WP isn’t “chemical” and so far it hasn’t been shown that we indiscriminately shelled civilians. Hell, if you want real chemical warfare, we used CS in 'Nam all the time for clearing spider-holes.

I don’t trust Army PR either, but this is going nowhere until someone shows some massive, intentional attacks on civilians.

[BobLibDem]

@John Carter of Mars

Yeah, but the stated purpose of this board is fighting ignorance, and calling an incendiary weapon a chemical weapon is ignorant.

Why the fuss? Does NOT calling it a chemical weapon cause its victims any less suffering? If one can use an incendiary weapon to cause chemical burns, how is that different from using a chemical weapon?

Let’s stipulate that WP is NOT a chemical weapon. OK, is dropping that substance indiscriminatey on populated areas a reasonable military procedure? I say no because of what it has done to civilians and the Italians have the photos to prove it.

[BobLibDem]

@silenus

I don’t trust Army PR either, but this is going nowhere until someone shows some massive, intentional attacks on civilians.

Why must it be intentional? Would not careless disregard be just as damning?

[silenus]

@BobLibDem

Why must it be intentional? Would not careless disregard be just as damning?

It might. Show me the proof. All we have so far is some Italian photos that don’t show anything substantial. Show me reckless disregard under non-battle conditions, and I’ll join you in the condemnation line.

[XT]

@rjung

Once again, reality smacks the Bush apologists with a Clue-By-Four:

Hey rjung! Can you give me a quote or post number when I denied that military used WP? I believe my quibble was ‘indiscriminant’ use directly against civilians.

@rjung

In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for “lethal missions.”

You’d really have me rjung had I made this arguement. Good thing I didn’t, huh? But thanks for playing…

@rjung

Struck a nerve, did I?

Considering your standard arguement is ‘Bush apologist!’ I’d have to go with ‘no’ as the answer. HAD you struck a nerve it would have been about 3 years ago…the first time I saw you trot that one out against me.

-XT

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@BobLibDem

Why the fuss? …

What I object to is the Italian press, and apparently you as well, using the term “chemical weapon” to gain a certain level of sensationalism that the articles, if honestly reported, would not merit.