Skip to comments.Monbiot: The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it
Posted on 11/16/2005 7:13:36 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.
The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "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 [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. 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... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Please edit the author field, if you would - it should be "George Monbiot", not simply "George" :)
White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. It is an explosive.
LOL! While tear gas and stink bombs ARE chemical weapons. What a moron this guy is. Chemical weapons are used all the time, they just aren't lethal.
HMX, RDX even gunpowder is a chemical weapon under this definition.
The moonbats have taken over.
This writer is in dire need of a dumb ass vaccine BUMP!
We have enough home-grown anti-American dingbats, should we really care what a Brit Leftist dingbat thinks...er...feels?
WP is an explosive, not a chemical weapon. So sorry, English moonbat twits... what was that you were saying about a smoking gun?
Wow...this guy's name actually is "moonbat."
Gee, we use bullets too, and they're propelled by CHEMICALS too !!!!
WP is not a chemical weapon.
Come to think of it, lead and copper, both of them, are chemicals.
White Phosphorus is not banned under any agreements... Technically TNT is a Chemical Weapon... does that mean we can't use mortar rounds?
Bloviating Nannooks of Inannity.
We have moonbats in the Senate and Congress. Why is it so surprising that they are out and about among us?
I thought willie pete had been standard munition for decades. Wasn't WP one of the four standard type of rounds for a hand held grenade launcher ("blooper gun") back in 'Nam?
Consider the source. Monbiot is as hardened a leftwing anti-American agitator as exists in any press anywhere.
Well I guess in that case all weapons more advanced thean the bow or the bayonet are "Chemical" weapons because they depend on a chemical reaction to generate the gases that make the weapon fire.
And the troops, too. Don't forget about the troops. They're people, and people are made out of LOTS of chemicals. Bazillions of them. Since we've not been so enlightened by Le Guardian, we've gotta pull out our troops and can no longer use people to defend out country.
WP is not an explosive, but a smoke agent or an incendiary.
The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial.
Hmmmmm. Yes that was obviously unfair. These armed insurgents had every right to NOT be exposed to WP.
George needs to get a life.
Reportedly, .50 cal rounds are not supposed to be legal as anti-personnel rounds. Only anti-materiel. Not entirely sure how the new sniper rifles or for that matter, even the Vietnam era use of M2s in single shot mode with Starlight scopes square with that.
The soldiers themselves are loaded with chemicals.
"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
And this is TRUE because the LEFTISTS say it is so! FACTS are just minor details that can be brushed aside at will.
While I KNOW I was trained that .50 cal was illegal in anti-personnel role (we weren't aiming at the guy, CPT, but his helmet and boots!). Apparently, it is incorrect. .50 cal IS legal for enemy troops.
On the other hand, WP use is unrestricted, but I've noted several places where it is explained that "the US has reserved the right to use WP" or words to that effect. Sounds like it is possible that in an extreme case, someone might be able to claim its application crossed a line.
Calling it a chemical weapon (and raising images of Mustard Gas or VX) is the height of yellow journalism. This nonsense is coming from the same mental midgets who rant and rave about depleted uranium.
< evil grin >
All weapons are chemicals.
C4 is a chemical.
B3 is a chemical.
RDX is a chemical.
Copper-jacketed lead is a chemical.
PETN is a chemical.
AMPHO-slurry is a chemical.
We certainly use these a lot in combat with out any issues at all.
Ummm, WP is not a "chemical weapon" any more than explosives are chemical weapons. WP is an incendiary and a smoke round. Technically, you're not supposed to use it on people, but equipment is OK.
AKs and RPGs are equipment...
Sorry, this is the Guardian - it's a fact-free zone....
Barking Monbiot ping.
Let's get to work!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.