On topic

1. Further allegations of deployment of 'unusual weapons' (gas, incendiary agents) in Falluja, courtesy sau and Ekk at ML.

http://members.boardhost.com/FallujaForum/msg/876.html http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5430 http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/224714.html http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/744/1/80/

This summary of evidence for 'unusual weapons' (leaving aside other inhumane practices) in Falluja from FallujaForum

SUMMARY OF REPORTS

A) USE OF NAPALM BY THE US MILITARY.

Two separate instances are noted in Iraq, both conceded by the US military.

(1) The napalm attacks on bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad, March and April 2003.

Andrew Buncombe reported in the Independent on 10 August that "The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad." [1]

The following admission by the US military that napalm was used has been widely quoted including by Buncome:

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers..It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

There are other admissions. Buncome added that in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war. [2]

Referring to the same incidents, the Tribune reports that

"During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos [3] confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

"Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped. Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines' main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

"Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April."

(2) The Safwan Hill napalm attack.

Herald Correspondent Lindsay Murdoch was an eyewitness to another napalm attack on 21 March 2003 on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border. He reports that "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there".[4]

Emphatic initial Pentagon denials of this turned out to be merely technical quibbles over napalm variants. If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday, they would have confirmed their use, the Tribune reported. What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function
"remarkably similar" to napalm weapons [2].

The tribune reports further that Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon, also acknowledged that firebombs were dropped near Safwan Hill.

B) USE OF WHITE PHOSPHOROUS BY THE US MILITARY IN FALLUJA
Here are three/four western reports of the use of white phosphorous in the assault on Falluja in November, and its flesh-melting effects, some of which were eyewitness accounts:

(1) Daily Telegraph: All-out assault on Fallujah, by Toby Harnden in Fallujah and Alec Russell in Washington.
".White phosphorus shells lit up the sky as armour drove through the breach and sent flaming material on to suspect insurgent haunts. Soldiers expressed the fear that with so much firepower the biggest danger was friendly fire." [6]

(2) Both the Sunday Times and the Washington Post described the incidents in Falluja like this: "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, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns." The Post quoted hospital physician Kamal Hadeethi: "The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

(3) Knight Ridder newspapers 8 Nov:
" "You know we're going to destroy this town," said Barreto, 22. "I hope so," replied the soldier sitting next to him. Phosphorous shells came next, releasing bouncing white orbs of smoke. The gunner on top of the Bradley began firing 25 mm high explosive rounds, filling the cabin of the Bradley with an ammonia-like smell. Barreto looked outside the window again and could see only smoke and flashes of light." [7]

C) REFERENCES
[1] The Independent reports napalm use (Buncombe, 10 Aug 2003)
[2] San Diego Union-Tribune - Pentagon napalm denials retracted
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html
[3] Maj. Gen. Jim Amos commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing, see [2]
[4] Sidney Morning Herald eyewitness account of napalm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html
[5] More information on Mark77 firebombs
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/images/030805firebombs_big.gif
[6] Telegraph reports white phosphorous use
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/09/wirq09.xml
[7] Knight Ridder newspapers report white phosphorous use
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/10264554.htm
[8] United Nations convention in 1980, see for example
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt

2. David Aaronovitch maintains his placement as top arse with another cruise-missile circular justification of our Mess-o-potamia. Company policy prevents linking to sewage, but I can quote an excerpt here-

We should not ask whether the Iraq invasion was 'legal' - we should ask whether it was 'good'.

There is much that I can agree with [in Sands' Lawless World}... In particular, I accept that the arbitrary procedures for dealing with 'terror' suspects at Guantanamo and Bagram have been a disaster, enhancing the likelihood of abuse, violating basic principles, discrediting those who laid most claim to be upholding human rights and strengthening opposition.

And yet I have some problems with other aspects of his approach. One is that, at important moments in his arguments about the law, I find that I have ceased to care as much as he wants me to about whether this or that action is, strictly speaking, legal. Instead, I find myself more concerned about whether the action is right.

So after the softsoap when DA concedes G'tmo might not be a CentreParc resort, but he's still supporting not the letter or process of the law, but a personal, private 'feeling' he has, probably transmitted through Jiminy Cricket.