More on Whiskey Pete
Busy, busy, busy today so I can’t devote as much to this as I’d like right now so I’ll just give you:
The Independent: US forces used ‘chemical weapon’ in Iraq
The Pentagon has admitted US forces used white phosphorus as “an incendiary weapon” during the assault last year on Fallujah.
Scott Burgess at The Daily Ablution comes at the story from the other end which is well worth a look.
Posted on November 16th, 2005 at 9:38 am
| See also • AKI: IRAQ: ITALIAN TV ALLEGES U.S. USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN FALLUJAH • The Independent: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war • On the side of the angels |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Uncategorized |
• |
The BBC finally covered this on the Today programme this morning. But managed to do so without explaining the meaning and effect of white phosphorous. You’d have been forgiven for thinking that all it did was produce some smoke that flushed people out of bunkers, rather than burning the flesh off their bones.
I heard that. I particularly enjoyed Liam Fox’s “this is a brutal weapon but these are brutal insurgents” line.
He’s pro-life, you know.
I think this debate is nit picking; let’s just go back to the original justification for the war. The war is not now justified because there were no WMD found (Scott Ritter, ex head of weapons inspections said there were none prior to March 2003).
The Burgess article you linked is essentially correct (we don’t know for sure if innocents were caught up in the firebombing) but does that still rationalise the total destruction of Fallujah?
And what about Iraqi troops napalmed in the invasion?
FF: I do agree, although I do think *how* the war was/is being conducted is an important debate.
The wider point, however, seems to have been missed. The dead civilians in the RAI documentary may not have been killed by chemical weapons of whatever flavour. The fact that they *are* dead civilians seems to have been lost in the argument over what killed them.
More on this later, I hope…
Justin,
Prove that they were civilians. Last time that I looked, the insurgents weren’t wearing any recognisable uniform.
DK
DK
There was certainly enough imagery of dead and injured women and children in the RAI documentary to persuade me, on the balance of probabilities, that the civilian bodycount in Falluja was more than none.
Without travelling to Falluja with a lie detector to interview surviving relatives I’m not sure how I could offer you categoric proof.
Prove to me categorically that Tony Blair doesn’t bleed green when you stick a knife in him.
There are however, plenty of accounts of civilian deaths here and the images (warning, strong stomach may be required) on Dahr Jamail’s website look pretty compelling to me.
So babies and children are insurgents now are they?