Does anyone have any news on the Fallujah Napalm cover up?

Question

I have seen horrific pictures of what the American Forces did to the citizens of Fallujah in November 2004 showing bodies burnt beyond recognition whilst their clothes remained intact - the hallmark of chemical weapons. There has been a cover up and a clean up since but many people testify to horrific accounts of mass destruction. Does anyone know of any credible reporter who has compiled a report?

Here's a pack of cards from the same deck

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516227
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm
http://www.rense.com/general59/useit.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1642831,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

It is quite clear that phospherous has been used liberally as a weapon but because of the US Forces news blockade in Fallujah its hard for the media to get at the truth as to what happened there.
Hence the question: Do you know of any reporter that had the freedom to enter Fallujah under US protection to report on the civilian casualties? The only reports that have come out have been 'sneaked out' by brave individuals willing to risk their lives against a backdrop of psychops - another word for obfuscation of the truth to give murderers immunity from the law.

British and European newspapers have reported the use of a chemical substance against citizens in Fallujah but they have not been able to identify the exact compound BECAUSE of a NEWS BLACK OUT at the time. I was asking if ANY reporter had been able to identify WHAT caused the terrible burning of the flesh and not the clothes.
No-one needs to accuse the US of anything, you accuse yourselves, like the brutal Arabs do, by your own babarism. AS Jesus would say - hypocrites prosecute war because they do not know the Father..

Answer 1

For every genuine picture or blog coming out of Iraq, there are a hundred either mocked up or used out of context.

Unless you saw it with your own eyes its best not to jump to conclusions as modern photgraphic techniques can make anything beliveable.

About two years ago a mainstream British newspaper carried a front page set of photgraphs of British Soldiers abusing Iraqis in the back of a truck.

There was uproar worldwide and people were killed in the reprisal riots.

What many of us, who actually know what they are looking at, noticed however were some minor discrepancies in the equipment the "soldiers" were carrying. For instance the SA80 rifles the guys were holding were not the current issue model, and neither did they have the correct serial numbers. To the untrained eye an SA80 mk1 looks like an SA80 mk2, but there are subtle differences.

Anyhow, after people got killed as a result of the article, and relations between the Brits and the locals in Basra took a downturn, a group of idiots in the UK were caught, arrested and then admitted to faking the photgraphs in a warehouse in England in order to both sell them for money and to protest the war. Even the lorry in question was traced and had never been outside the UK. None of the people in the photos were soldiers, or Iraqis and all of the gear had been sourced from surplus shops and the rifles were de-activated junk from gulf war one.

The newspaper editor was forced to resign, but his actions in publishing the photos as genuine had cost lives. People had died as a result.

Also to back up previous comments, there are no incendiary weapons which burn the body yet leave the clothes, also napalm and white phos are two different things.

Answer 2

So where's the evidence of Napalm? From what I saw in the BBC report that you linked, it was white phosphorous, not Napalm. They're not the same thing.

If you're going to bash my government and my military, the least you could do is get your story straight. There's no such thing as a chemical agent that burns the body while leaving the clothing intact, for instance.

Now - that said, it's time some of you remember that this is a military action. It's not a walk in the park, picking daisies. People die, and sometimes it's because they got burned up. White phosphorous is not banned by the Geneva Convention, and while there is a treaty out there that promises not to use it, neither Iraq nor the US are signatories to it. Therefore, white phosphorous is a legal, legitimate weapon.

And also remember that if the city of Fallujah hadn't been harboring literally thousands of active terrorists, their city wouldn't have been targeted in the first place.

So, here's your answer:
1. False premise. You use this question to accuse my country of using a chemical weapon.
2. No such weapon (as the one you described) has ever been known to exist.
3. Even if it did, it wouldn't be Napalm, OR white phosphorous.
4. You accuse because you read something on greenleft.org, demonstrating that you have only a tentative grasp on reality.
5. And here's the reality: During the battle for Fallujah, I volunteered (as a civillian) in a US military hospital about a hundred miles from there. While I saw wounded from that battle constantly (both US and Iraqi), I never once saw anything that could have been considered a chemical burn. I also saw nothing to indicate the use of either white phosphorous or Napalm. But even if white phosphorous was used, there would be no cover up, because it's not illegal in the first place.

Answer 3

Phos rounds, are used by tanks and artillery for marking targets, and is an effective tool. The command given over my radio nett was "fire wily pete" (White Phosph= Wily peter). As a Former Marine Tank officer who fought in Iraq, I can testify that I never directly fired these rounds on Civilian targets. Howver, when you have incoming rounds from an apartment building in a built up area, well, not good for any civies nearby. Napalm is used to hit troops in the open, and is not an effective tool against buildings etc. I did not see any dropped, or smell any Napalm (and believe me it gives off a distinctive odor). Any HE round will cause a fairly large blast radius, and start fires if ANYcombustibles are around. The concussion can also kill, the fire/burns u saw were most likely post-mortem. Also, your Chemical weapon knowledge is very, well, spotty at best. Chemical and biological weapons were never used, WP is not considered a "chemical round" by either NATO or Any other military. Chemical rounds do not "burn" the body, but may show up as blisters (if a blistering agent was used) Also, Chemical weapons are to INJURE not kill, as it takes more time, effort, and supplies to work on injured personel, than just bury the dead. Also, the de-moralizng effect of seeing your own people suffering a chemical weapon attack is a weapon in itself. As an example of this "wounding effect" most of the Victims of Posion Gas in WWI (used on both sides )did not die, over 90% survived the attack, and went back into the lines(although suffered in some cases liflong disibilities). Well just wanted to cover a few things. Also, please do not trust what you see on TV, it is slanted extremly pro left, and anti American. I know, I was there.

Answer 4

You must be talking about the pictures from the mass graves that were found in Iraq. It is pretty pathetic that people like you talk such BS and don't even know what you are talking about. Napalm would burn the clothing. There were pictures from the mass graves in Iraq where residents had to actually look at the clothing or items still with the bodies, to try to determine whether or not they were relatives that were missing from Saddam and Chemical Ali's crimes against Iraqi civilians(mustard, nerve gases). Yeah the next thing you are gonna try to tell me that Bush was behind the Trade center, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania incidents. Before you spout off, how would you like to be in that same situation when you don't know who the enemy is because they all look the same. Tell me those two soldiers that were missing beheaded themselves too. Go back and roll another one. Make it blunt size this time because you are out of your mind.

Answer 5

I'm sure there are a lot of countries that would love to have weak minded, anti-American people come to live with them. You might want to immigrate to North Korea or Iran.

Had I been calling the shots in Fallugah, we would have forced evacuation of all willing to leave without arms (and fingerprinted and id'd them all) and then leveled the city to the ground with bombers. I think they got off easy.

I think you summed up your own argument when you asked "Does anyone know of any credible reporter who has compiled a report?". You do not, yet you post this trash.

Stop being America's enemy. I could understand if you said that you saw reports and asked if anybody credible had made any. I can't understand your assumption that the US military personal are using chemical weapons. Do you not understand that weak-minded people like YOU are the biggest weapon that is being used against us?

Answer 6

You seem inclined to root out any possible misconduct by US forces. Are you as concerned about those 'insurgents' indiscriminate usage of explosives?

You mentioned white phosphorous usage. I can tell you WP burns everything. And I have a friend that was in the Fallujah area that November and he never mentioned CW or napalm. In fact you are the first I have heard mention the possibility of CW. I wonder where those sites you mentioned came up with that stuff.

Why don't you go there and investigate the whole thing yourself? That way you would know about the credibility issue.

Answer 7

First, you are full of sh*t. If such a thing happened, the anti-US press would be all over it. Our own press takes leaks from our spy agencies and blows the cover on covert activities that are in place now to fight terrorism. If such a thing as this were happening, you would be able to read about it in the New York Times. Second, I wish we would be a lot harder on the insurgents. Maybe the thing we should have done in the invasion was to bomb the place to smithereens and let Allah sort out who was right and who was wrong. Oh, I forgot, as the world superpower we have to balance the fine line between keeping the peace and abusing that power. I sure hope my son doesn't have to die saving your a**.

Answer 8

Falluja was a horrible battle for both the soldiers and Marines on the ground. The town was evacuated, but a number of civilians decided to stay for one reason or another (btw, if the Marines told me to leave town because they were going to attack i would leave).

You mention "there has been a cover up and clean up since..." i assume you have some sort of news article to show this is a fact and not your opinion?

you want credible reports of the fighting in the city. here ill give you a link.

Answer 9

Having , as a medic, seen the results of all types of weapons. I know of nothing that can burn up a body and leave it's clothing intact. Be it Jellied Gasoline, White Phosphorus or foo gas. Maybe you are thinking of spontaneous human combustion. I have no doubt that flame weapons have been used in Iraq. But they do not have the effect you describe.

Answer 10

Good Lord! Napalm would burn off the clothing and the skin too. Have you not seen the pictures from Nam? I think this is another rumor that has no basis in fact. Grow up and learn before you put something like this into the universe! In today's media frenzy NO WAY would that get by.
they tell you what you want to know and what you don't want to know either. Don't believe everything you read. Propaganda is always rife.