The Iraq thread 4

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

New York Times

So it appears even republican senators ask for a withdrawal plan now.

[quicksand 0]

US military forced to admit of having used white phosphorus against Fallujah

Quote[/b] ]

The controversy has raged for 12 months. Ever since last November, when US forces battled to clear Fallujah of insurgents, there have been repeated claims that troops used "unusual" weapons in the assault that all but flattened the Iraqi city. Specifically, controversy has focussed on white phosphorus shells (WP) - an incendiary weapon usually used to obscure troop movements but which can equally be deployed as an offensive weapon against an enemy. The use of such incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by international treaty.

The debate was reignited last week when an Italian documentary claimed Iraqi civilians - including women and children - had been killed by terrible burns caused by WP. The documentary, Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, by the state broadcaster RAI, cited one Fallujah human-rights campaigner who reported how residents told how "a rain of fire fell on the city". Yesterday, demonstrators organised by the Italian communist newspaper, Liberazione, protested outside the US Embassy in Rome. Today, another protest is planned for the US Consulate in Milan. "The 'war on terrorism' is terrorism," one of the newspaper's commentators declared.

The claims contained in the RAI documentary have met with a strident official response from the US, as well as from right-wing commentators and bloggers who have questioned the film's evidence and sought to undermine its central allegations.

While military experts have supported some of these criticisms, an examination by The Independent of the available evidence suggests the following: that WP shells were fired at insurgents, that reports from the battleground suggest troops firing these WP shells did not always know who they were hitting and that there remain widespread reports of civilians suffering extensive burn injuries. While US commanders insist they always strive to avoid civilian casualties, the story of the battle of Fallujah highlights the intrinsic difficulty of such an endeavour.

It is also clear that elements within the US government have been putting out incorrect information about the battle of Fallujah, making it harder to assesses the truth. Some within the US government have previously issued disingenuous statements about the use in Iraq of another controversial incendiary weapon - napalm.

The assault upon Fallujah, 40 miles from Baghdad, took place over a two-week period last November. US commanders said the city was an insurgent stronghold. Civilians were ordered to evacuate in advance. Around 50 US troops and an estimated 1,200 insurgents were killed. How many civilians were killed is unclear. Up to 300,000 people were driven from the city.

Following the RAI broadcast, the US Embassy in Rome issued a statement which denied that US troops had used WP as a weapon. It said: "To maintain that US forces have been using WP against human targets ... is simply mistaken." In a similar denial, the US Ambassador in London, Robert Tuttle, wrote to the The Independent claiming WP was only used as an obscurant or else for marking targets. In his letter, he says: "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate, lawful and conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or phosphorus as weapons."

However, both these two statements are undermined by first-hand evidence from troops who took part in the fighting. They are also undermined by an admission by the Pentagon that WP was used as a weapon against insurgents.

In a comprehensive written account of the military operation at Fallujah, three US soldiers who participated said WP shells were used against insurgents taking cover in trenches. Writing in the March-April edition of Field Artillery, the magazine of the US Field Artillery based in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which is readily available on the internet, the three artillery men said: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions ... and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ... We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using WP to flush them out and high explosive shells (HE) to take them out."

Another first-hand account from the battlefield was provided by an embedded reporter for the North County News, a San Diego newspaper. Reporter Darrin Mortenson wrote of watching Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire WP rounds into Fallujah. He wrote: "Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused."

Mr Mortenson also watched the mortar team fire into a group of buildings where insurgents were known to be hiding. In an email, he confirmed: "During the fight I was describing in my article, WP mortar rounds were used to create a fire in a palm grove and a cluster of concrete buildings that were used as cover by Iraqi snipers and teams that fired heavy machine guns at US choppers." Another report, published in the Washington Post, gave an idea of the sorts of injuries that WP causes. It said insurgents "reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns". A physician at a local hospital said the corpses of insurgents "were burned, and some corpses were melted".

The use of incendiary weapons such as WP and napalm against civilian targets - though not military targets - is banned by international treaty. Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." Some have claimed the use of WP contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes".

However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty.

The RAI film said civilians were also victims of the use of WP and reported claims by a campaigner from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, that many victims had large burns. The report claimed that the clothes on some victims appeared to be intact even though their bodies were badly burned.

Critics of the RAI film - including the Pentagon - say such a claim undermines the likelihood that WP was responsible for the injuries since WP would have also burned their clothes. This opinion is supported by a leading military expert. John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.org, said of WP: "If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning." Though Mr Pike had not seen the RAI film, he said the burned appearance of some bodies may have been caused by exposure to the elements.

Yet there are other, independent reports of civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who collected the testimony of refugees from the city spoke to a doctor who had remained in the city to help people, encountered numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns.

One resident told him the US used "weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns." The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin melted"

Jeff Englehart, a former marine who spent two days in Fallujah during the battle, said he heard the order go out over military communication that WP was to be dropped. In the RAI film, Mr Englehart, now an outspoken critic of the war, says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children."

In the aftermath of the battle, the State Department's Counter Misinformation Office issued a statement saying that WP was only "used [WP shells] very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." When The Independent confronted the State Department with the first-hand accounts of soldiers who participated, an official accepted the mistake and undertook to correct its website. This has since been done.

Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."

Why the two embassies have issued statements denying that WP was used is unclear. However, there have been previous examples of US officials issuing incorrect statements about the use of incendiary weapons. Earlier this year, British Defence Minister Adam Ingram was forced to apologise to MPs after informing them that the US had not used an updated form of napalm in Iraq. He said he had been misled by US officials.

Napalm was used in several instances during the initial invasion. Colonel Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, remarked during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003: "The generals love napalm - it has a big psychological effect."

In his letter, Ambassador Tuttle claims there is a distinction between napalm and the 500lb Mk-77 firebombs he says were dropped - even though experts say they are virtually identical. The only difference is that the petrol used in traditional napalm has been replaced in the newer bombs by jet fuel.

Since the RAI broadcast, there have been calls for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the battle of Fallujah. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also repeated its call to "all fighters to take every feasible precaution to spare civilians and to respect the principles of distinction and proportionality in all operations".

There have also been claims that in the minutiae of the argument about the use of WP, a broader truth is being missed. Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."

How can they easily get away with lieing through their teeths to the entire world is beyond my comprehension.They lied in November 2004 when Al-Jazeera,Fallujah civillians&doctors;independent medical teams claimed they used white phosphorus against the city,they lied again when the Rai Uno documentary aired vehemently denying using white phosphorus for anything else then "illumination purposes" only admiting after being faced with undeniable edvidence from the Independent.

What`s ironic is Americans calling the insurgents cowards.They stood in Fallujah facing the most modern military in the world twice.They fought for every inch of the city,inflicting the highest death toll on US Marines since the war started even though they were constantly hit by destructive air raids they couldn`t possibly strike back at.

And after all the advantages the US military had,they had to

also declare every person in the city an insurgent and a viable target and even that wasn`t enough.

Quote[/b] ]: "Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused."

Quote[/b] ] It said insurgents "reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns". A physician at a local hospital said the corpses of insurgents "were burned, and some corpses were melted".

Quote[/b] ]"I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children."

[billybob2002 0]

What`s ironic is Americans calling the insurgents cowards.They stood in Fallujah facing the most modern military in the world twice.They fought for every inch of the city,inflicting the highest death toll on US Marines since the war started even though they were constantly hit by destructive air raids they couldn`t possibly strike back at.

And after all the advantages the US military had,they had to

also declare every person in the city an insurgent and a viable target and even that wasn`t enough.

Quote[/b] ]: "Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused."

Quote[/b] ] It said insurgents "reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns". A physician at a local hospital said the corpses of insurgents "were burned, and some corpses were melted".

Quote[/b] ]"I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children."

 

Did I miss the memo when the insurgents in Fallujah stood up to the coalition twice? I can't remember but was it not you complaining about the first operation about the civis being killed? The coalition could had swept through the city but aborted do to the civil death toll. The second operation was not successful against dealing with the insurgents imo because they gave the insurgents DAYS to get out and most did. Most of the insurgents packed up and ran to "fight another day." Losing 50 soldiers and marines while assualting a city is "not bad" compared to previous city assualts in history (this sounds fecked up but what can you say).

What is the point of bolding that the mortar team leader did not know were his rounds where going? They are just given coordinates to fire at. They are not given a detail description of where the rounds would be hitting.

I guess you are going to go in to overrdrive mode when you find out that the Marines have been using a weapon called SMAW-NE...  

[Ironsight 1]

What`s ironic is Americans calling the insurgents cowards.They stood in Fallujah facing the most modern military in the world twice.They fought for every inch of the city,inflicting the highest death toll on US Marines since the war started even though they were constantly hit by destructive air raids they couldn`t possibly strike back at.

I think it's mostly stupidity or hoping you end up in paradise with 72 virgins and not courage

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did I miss the memo when the insurgents in Fallujah stood up to the coalition twice?

If you don`t remember you missed quite alot

Quote[/b] ] I can't remember but was it not you complaining about the first operation about the civis being killed?

Well sorry to be the pinko commie here,but I find it natural to complain whenever civillians are killed period especially when they are murdered by an occupation force that has no moral grounds to be in the country they invaded,lieing trough their teeths to fight a war,having no regard for civillians casualties destroying everything in it`s path to achieve their goals no matter how significant the destruction.

Quote[/b] ]The coalition could had swept through the city but aborted do to the civil death toll.

They didn`t abort due to the civillian death toll.It was the fact that the death toll was exposed that obligated them to stop.

See how they put the lessons in to practice in Nobember.Complete media blackout.I would bet based on shere scale that there were more civillians killed in November then April yet they were a mery bunch using white phosphorus in areas that would be impossible not to affect civillians,killing wounded fighters-anything was possible as long as the camera wasn`t filming.

Quote[/b] ]The second operation was not successful against dealing with the insurgents imo because they gave the insurgents DAYS to get out and most did. Most of the insurgents packed up and ran to "fight another day.

Well the US military estimates there are 5.000 core insurgent fighters.They also claim 1,200 were killed in Fallujah.It is safe to assume that at least half of the insurgency fought during the siege,if we are to trust US military figures( ) which clearly prove you are wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Losing 50 soldiers and marines while assualting a city is "not bad" compared to previous city assualts in history (this sounds fecked up but what can you say).

Well 78 if I remember corectly,but I can understand how you feel.I mean US casualties dwarf when compared to Iraqi deaths,thankfully the war wasn`t in vain and they died for a good cause

Quote[/b] ]What is the point of bolding that the mortar team leader did not know were his rounds where going? They are just given coordinates to fire at. They are not given a detail description of where the rounds would be hitting.

Well in this case I actually mis-bold the text but in all fairness I have to admit my interest and knowledge in military weaponry is quite limited.

--------

I really don`t want to start a full fledged debate as I am tired of this subject as most are,probably you too.I am more curious if you-one of the stunchest supporter of this war and defendent of US military actions have changed your opinion about the course of this war after all the relevations when Bush support is at an all time low and even republicans are starting to request for a withdrawl plan.

[billybob2002 0]

(SNIP)

--------

I really don`t want to start a full fledged debate as I am tired of this subject as most are,probably you too.I am more curious if you-one of the stunchest supporter of this war and defendent of  US military actions have changed your opinion about the course of this war after all the relevations when Bush support is at an all time low and even republicans are starting to request for a withdrawl plan.

My opinion has changed somewhat on the issue of WMDs. However, I don't think TBA blantaly lied about it. On the timetable issue, I believe that is BS. I don't believe in a creation of a withdrawal timetable because things can change that could modify the timetable. I agree with the Republicans that TBA should spell out to the American public what are the conditions for the withdrawal. However, I think TBA as already done that.

[Akira 0]

Please tell us what that is then...because 90% of America must have missed it.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1645457,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Iran in turmoil as president's purge deepens

Simon Tisdall and Ewen MacAskill

Friday November 18, 2005

The Guardian

Iran is facing political paralysis as its newly elected president purges government institutions, bringing accusations that he is undertaking a coup d'état.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's clearout of his opponents began last month but is more sweeping than previously understood and has reached almost every branch of government, the Guardian has learned. Dozens of deputy ministers have been sacked this month in several government departments, as well the heads of the state insurance and privatisation organisations. Last week, seven state bank presidents were dismissed in what an Iranian source described as "a coup d'état".

An informed Iranian source with first-hand knowledge of all the main political and clerical figures in the country said: "Ahmadinejad is defying everybody. He does whatever he wants and considers it to be right. This is not how things are done in Iran."

The upheaval at the highest government levels in Tehran follows the dismissal of four senior ambassadors and has raised questions about Iran's ability to conclude negotiations on its nuclear programme which are due to come to a head at a UN meeting in Vienna next week.

Mr Ahmadinejad drew international condemnation after he made comments about wiping Israel off the map. Concern about the government's isolationist stance has been increased by claims from Tony Blair that Iran is aiding bombmakers attacking British troops in south-east Iraq.

There goes the neighborhood.

[billybob2002 0]

Please tell us what that is then...because 90% of America must have missed it.

A snip from one of his speeches:

Quote[/b] ]

"The enemy's goal is to drive us out of Iraq before the Iraqis have established a secure democratic government. They will not succeed," the US president said at the start of a joint White House press conference with Mr Jaafari.

I think that is likely his "plan". Common sense, no?

[Supah 0]

I wouldn't call "untill the Iraqi Government establishes a democratic government" a very definate timetable and rather a poor thing to plan upon. Seeing how they are allowing islamic influences on the constitution their pbb never going to come to a true democracy, if their tutored by the USA thats going to be even less likely.

[billybob2002 0]

I wouldn't call "untill the Iraqi Government establishes a democratic government" a very definate timetable and rather a poor thing to plan upon. Seeing how they are allowing islamic influences on the constitution their pbb never going to come to a true democracy, if their tutored by the USA thats going to be even less likely.

It is not a timeable because TBA is against creating one but more outline-ish. I hope that when Bush talks about "democratic government", he is using it like he would if he talking about America. Politicians like say we have a democratic goverment but, in fact, we have a republican form of government. I don't think he talking about a "true" democracy.

[walker 0]

Hi all

While Dodgy Dick Cheney attempts to both wrap himself in the US flag and hide behind the uniforms of brave US soldiers whenever any one points out that the Iraq war was a wrong decision; an interesting course of action for someone who dodged Vietnam no less than six times via dodgy deferments. Goldbricker or what?

The death toll in Iraq continues to rise:

Quote[/b] ]Three Bombings in Iraq Kill Nearly 100

Hotel Housing Journalists, Two Mosques North of Baghdad Targeted

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Fred Barbash

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, November 18, 2005; 10:38 AM

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 -- Three separate bomb attacks in Iraq killed nearly 100 people Friday morning, among them 90 Iraqis killed when attackers strapped with explosives detonated inside two Shiite mosques north of Baghdad.

In Baghdad, suicide attackers exploded two vehicles loaded with bombs outside a Baghdad hotel housing foreign journalists early Friday, collapsing at least one neighboring apartment block and sheering off walls around sleeping families.

The back-to-back Baghdad blasts killed at least six and wounded more than 41, police said.

Rescue crews pulled wailing children off the rubble and pulled dust-shrouded dead and wounded from under twisted girders and broken masonry. Screaming women in black abayas and other survivors sought family members as cars set alight by the blast burned around them.

Police and a senior U.S. military officer said the target appeared to be the Hamra Hotel, whose tenants include some foreigners.

Hotel security cameras caught the first attacker as he drove up in what appeared to be a white minivan. The vehicle detonated just outside blast walls surrounding the hotel.

A second vehicle attempted to drive through a hole made in the walls by the first blast but its way was blocked by a deep crater and rubble left by the first blast and it detonated before it could get through, setting off an explosion more powerful than the first and destroying the security camera...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....11.html

The signs are that a civil war is in danger of starting. This needs to be nipped in the bud now. The TBA and TBA2 need to put in the number of troops required to nip this in the bud.

For some time now I have been saying there needs to be at least 5 times as many troops as there are there now. That is the assessment the sacked generals made. As always the NeoConMen never committed the amount of troops required to do the job and now you have the NeoConMen, having made the mess, saying they want to pull the few troops committed.

I do not think the NeoConMen have an inkling of an idea of how bad it will be to retreat from Iraq in contact with an insurgency an anti coalition population and a civil war all at the same time.

We have also the possibility of a larger Middle East Conflict with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations coming in on the side of the Sunni insurgency and the Iranians coming in on the side of the Shia.

In such a situation evacuating through the Gulf could well result in the loss of a fleet.

Worried Walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

I agree, the United States military presence in Iraq needs to increase dramatically if full-scale civil war is to be avoided. All this talk of "a timetable for withdrawal" not only encourages the insurgents, but will doubtless demoralise the troops on the ground. Hopefully things don't deteriorate into the mess which prevailed in Vietnam at the end of active operations; fragging et al...

The United States has an obligation to keep the peace and root out the crazy extremists, for if it weren't for the United States, these problems would not exist.

It is, however, my belief that British forces in Iraq should withdraw; partly because there is deep-rooted feeling here that they shouldn't be there in the first place; and partly because we will never, ever be able to make the same commitment as the U.S., and thus perpetrating the bizaare impression that Britain is an equal partner in the Coalition of the willing.

[NavyEEL 0]

I disagree. The last thing needed is for more troops to be deployed. In fact, there should be even less troops than there already are. It's an insurgency, not an all-out war. Because of that, increasing the number of troops would not contribute to achieving victory--in fact, it would more likely be detrimental.

What needs to be done is get the Iraqi government and population more involved. Their increased support is the only way to kill the insurgency for good. Sending more troops would only increase the amount of cannon fodder. In addition, it would give the insurgents a feeling that they are winning because we had to deploy more troops into the area. That would turn even more people over to their cause.

[walker 0]

Hi NavyEEL

The real threat is civil war in Iraq. That is Al Qaeda's end game.

There just are not enough sunni involved in the civil process.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

***BREAKING NEWS***

Some possibly good news

Reports are comming in that American troops may have killed or captured Al-Zarqawi.

Quote[/b] ]Al-Zarqawi May Be Among Dead in Iraq Fight

By ROBERT H. REID

The Associated Press

Sunday, November 20, 2005; 6:29 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight _ some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

Insurgents, meanwhile, killed an American soldier and a Marine in separate attacks over the weekend, while a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in the south.

In Washington, a U.S. official said the identities of the terror suspects killed in the Saturday raid was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top al-Qaida operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the house in the northeastern part of the city.

During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....10.html

Follow link for the full story.

Kind Regards a hopefull Walker

[Jinef 2]

You can deal with such a situation in two ways.

Complete saturation of the country with US/UK forces. Basically if you have a cop on each street corner criminal activity is harder to organise. With complete control over movement of civilians with hundreds of checkpoints and ID cards you could make it very hard to move.

This would be similar to how the Germans controlled occupied territories in WW2. Very effectively.

However that was an option for 2 years ago. Obviously the very smart people in suits decided to take the cheap option and commit an impressive 'crash bang wallop' force which had too much reliance on high tech gadgets and too few Infantry, who are the key to controlling ground.

Driving through a town with a big tank with the words "Fuck you Iraq!" stencilled on the side is not too effective at controlling people. Sure a big tank might scare westerners who think a fist brawl in the street is the most exciting thing since hot dinners .... but for inhabitants of the middle east .... it means fuck all.

As usual .... "All the gear and no idea"

[EiZei 0]

Take a look at this formerly classified 1995 information report regarding Saddam's use of WP chemical weapons: (any emphasis mine)

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declass....1r.html

Quote[/b] ]

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS

CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1.            DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED

BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [   (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4)   ][   (b)(7)(D)   ]

                                                               

DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH IRANIAN BORDERS --

A.            IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL  TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

The irony is overwhelming.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL

I..I simpy can not find a fiting comment to this,the irony indeed.

[quicksand 0]

US press was in a pre-war coma

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AFP) - US media organisations are now skewering

President George W. Bush over his case for ousting

Saddam Hussein, but few questioned the pro-war juggernaut in the run-up to battle.

Now, with the White House's once feared public relations machine misfiring, Bush's approval ratings plumbing their lowest depths, and US troops still dying in foreign fields, many commentators and journalists are piling on.

As the White House and suddenly bold Democratic rivals trade bilious charges over

Iraq, a new book by award-winning journalist Kristina Borjesson demands an accounting from the media on its own pre-war errors.

In "Feet to the Fire, the media after 9/11", 21 reporters reflect on the Bush administration's case for the preemptive invasion of Iraq in 2003, on the grounds Saddam could offer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Many of those interviewed penned questioning reports before the war, but were muffled by a drumbeat of bombastic television and newspaper coverage.

"The bottom line is that in this era of twenty-four hour cable news, there is less hard news and real information than ever on television about what is going on in this nation's arena of power and around the world," Borjesson writes.

"There is propaganda and fake news masquerading as real news courtesy of the US government," she wrote of a media establishment in which many luminaries seemed as keen to wage war as anyone in the White House.

"Feet to the Fire" features a roll-call of Washington reporters and war correspondents, including veterans Peter Arnett, Walter Pincus, and ABC News correspondent Ted Koppel.

It prompts questions over whether the US media was duped by the White House, was negligent or complicit in the rush to war, and whether senior reporters were too close to government sources.

"With few exceptions, both print and television provided very poor coverage," said independent intelligence expert and reporter James Bamford, in the book, exempting the Washington Post's Pincus and the Knight Ridder operation which feeds regional US papers.

"The problem was, these people were fighting an entrenched mind-set that was accepting the Bush administration's rationales for going to war, when they should have been doubting."

Helen Thomas, grande dame of the White House press corps, argues in the book the media was cowed by the fallout from the September 11 strikes in 2001.

"From 9/11, the American press suddenly had to be the superpatriots," she said. "The press went into a coma."

As the administration began to argue for war with Iraq, the country was still wallowing in wounded patriotism.

But that was no excuse for journalists not to ask awkward questions about the expansion of the 'war on terror' to Iraq, said John MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine.

"It was just pathetic, it was the worst it's been since before Vietnam," Borjesson quotes him as saying.

Debate over the roots of the Iraq war has been fanned by the indictment last month of senior White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby in a

CIA leak case.

Several top reporters, including former New York Times correspondent Judith Miller, stand accused of allowing themselves to be used by top officials peddling now discredited intelligence.

The Times and some other newspapers have published reviews and clarifications of their coverage, following the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Some observers believe the US press, its freedoms enshrined in the US constitution, is less inclined to challenge power than more adversarial colleagues abroad.

"Nobody wants to be isolated socially," said MacArthur, drawing a comparison between modern day Washington and the court of France's King Louis XIV.

"Everybody wants to be at Versailles. Versailles is Washington ... they want to be part of the power structure, and if taking the leak from the official source gets you credit within your news organisation ... getting close to Cheney, getting close to Rumsfeld ... if that brings you credit and gets you more promotions, it's a great way to live."

Borjesson argued in an interview with AFP that the lessons of the last few years show the media needs to change.

"Official source reporting needs to be given less emphasis, reporting from first hand sources who are lower down than official sources is the way to go."

I remember argueing with my friends how inevitable the war was with the skewed US media playing into the hands of the government and why no one would ask the valid questions on everyone`s mind,instead all reporters would stand like vagetebles in front of the politicians they interviewed and nod their heads like brainless puppets every time a TBA member made an "irrefutable" affirmation.

It only took 3 years and a complete failure in war,and Bush ratings to crash and burn for reporters to start poping some questions that should have been put 40 months ago.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Ah, even more irony.  Back then, "The Liberal Media" couldn't give a hoot about any valid justification for war, whilst it wouldn't surprise me if, a la Hearst, Fox News had decided to go plant some WMDs in Baghdad.  But now, every media outlet, left and right alike, is going anti-war.

I suppose it'll give the Neo-Cons more ammunition against "The Liberal Media". Goddamn persecution complex.

Of course, it's all very well for the press to hound Bush, but how many have any good editorials on how to end the war...

[Balschoiw 0]

Measuring President Bush By His Own Words

Quote[/b] ]On September 12, 2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly in a stirring speech entitled ‘A Decade of Deception and Defiance.’ Mr. Bush accused Saddam Hussein of secretly manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and crating a society based on fear, intimidation, and mass killings. If numerous conditions were not met by Saddam Hussein, George Bush warned of imminent actions and grave consequences. Since Mr. Bush aggressively initiated the war with Iraq and is now holding Saddam Hussein accountable to the same standards found in his speech, let’s revisit the same words Mr. Bush spoke and see how HE measures up to his own words, principles, and new world order.

’…the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of one man.’ After many months of brutal battles and bloodshed in Iraq, peace and stability are still elusive. Some reputable reports claim over 135,000 Iraqi’s have died with 400,000 suffering wounds. Millions of Iraqis are still without electricity, water, and many children are malnourished and suffering from environmental degradation. The Pentagon recently reported that the insurgency is still gaining strength. Mr. Bush continues his mantra in threatening to spread the war to neighboring Iran and Syria. Even China and Russia, which recently signed a military treaty, is concerned of U.S. expansion and imperialism in south central Asia and has called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Who is destroying the peace of the world?

’…our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions.’ With Vice-President Cheney and his tacit support of torture, the Bush administration has suspended the right to a trial and is promoting ’enhanced confessions’ not only for suspected ‘enemy combatants,’ but even U.S. citizens that are being held in secret gulags around the world. It is well known that there are vicious and brutal covert groups operating in the U.S. Defense Department and CIA. The administration has even admitted to the privatization and outsourcing of torture to paramilitary death squads. In despising totalitarianism, a government can in turn become totalitarian in order to destroy the system it condemns. Who is the rogue nation now?

‘…citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape.’ From the thousands at Abu Graib who were tortured, raped, sodomized, and who received electric shock treatment to the 173 mutilated and starving prisoners who were recently released from a secret dungeon, Mr. Bush should be ashamed and embarrassed. As the previous commander at Abu Graib claims she witnessed written memo’s from Mr. Rumsfield concerning the use of torture techniques in dealing with prisoners, U.S. troops are desecrating and burning the bodies of Islamic fighters. The War Party has framed the debate and declared themselves above the law. In opting for only a military and vengeful solution, today’s freedom fighters and defenders of pseudo-democracies are capable of becoming tomorrow’s terrorists. Who are the torturers now?

‘Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder.’ Unfortunately for Fallujah and other insurgent strongholds, the above quote proved to be hollow. Not only did U.S. forces indiscriminately kill civilians, bomb hospitals, destroy thousands of homes and schools, but the illegal and banned chemical weapon ‘white phosphorous’ and use of cluster bombs were implemented. When Aljazeera attempted to air the ’scorched earth’ policies of the U.S. Military, their headquarters in Baghdad and Afghanistan were razed. So far over 70 journalists have been killed in the U.S.-Iraqi War. Video footage of Abu Graib, the war in Iraq, and the return of U.S. wounded soldiers and flag draped coffins have been suppressed and kept out of sight from the American public. How free and open is U.S. society, especially in reference to the Patriot Act?

‘My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council…’ Does anyone remember Hans Blix of the UN, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, pleading with the Bush Administration to allow UN weapon inspectors to have more time in searching for WMD‘s? France and Germany, two of the U.S.’s closest allies along with most of the world refused to participate in criminal invasion of Iraq. Over 83,000 suspected ‘enemy combatants’ are now being held around the world by the U.S., who is denying these prisoners access from UN and Red Cross workers. Did the U.S. skirt UN policies and articles of peace?

‘If we fail to act…the Iraqi regime will remain unstable-the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom,…’ Mr. Allawi, the former Interim Prime Minister of Iraq, just yesterday commented that the situation in Iraq under U.S. occupation forces is now just as tumultuous and deadly as it was under the reign of Saddam Hussein. CIA reports now claim that instead of freeing the Iraqi’s, their country is embroiled in a civil war and it has become a magnet and training ground for some terrorist organizations. How stable and free is Iraq?

In coming to the UN to deliver his speech that day, Mr. Bush made two fatal errors. First he arrogantly believed his religion and god was superior to those of other cultures. His second mistake was the perception that his form of government and political views were exemplary and would be welcomed by others and therefore easily exported through military means. Unfortunately, liberty and holiness can never be preserved or spread unless it is first practiced at home. As the trial of Saddam Hussein begins, there is another leader who should be held accountable. This leader has disassociated himself and dissembled his words and principles. However, Mr. Bush was right about one thing in his speech, ‘The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.’ Not an occupation force or foreign power, but only the people of Iraq, in practicing popular sovereignty and unifying, in seeking forgiveness, justice, and mercy, only they can choose their freedom.

It´s been about time for a comparison like that. I know that a politicians words are most of the time not even worth a penny but even a penny seems to be a goal Bush will never achieve.

[EiZei 0]

It´s been about time for a comparison like that. I know that a politicians words are most of the time not even worth a penny but even a penny seems to be a goal Bush will never achieve.

Oh Bushies words are worth a lot more than a penny. In fact they were "bought" for quite a large sum of money.

For over 200 milliard american dollars and increasing to be precise.

[billybob2002 0]

Must control myself....it is somebodies opinion....

[EiZei 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005....d=print

Quote[/b] ]

November 29, 2005

Sunnis Accuse Iraqi Military of Kidnappings and Slayings

By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 28 - As the American military pushes the largely Shiite Iraqi security services into a larger role in combating the insurgency, evidence has begun to mount suggesting that the Iraqi forces are carrying out executions in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or explanation.

Some Sunni men have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished.

Some of the young men have turned up alive in prison. In a secret bunker discovered earlier this month in an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad, American and Iraqi officials acknowledged that some of the mostly Sunni inmates appeared to have been tortured.

Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, and other government officials denied any government involvement, saying the killings were carried out by men driving stolen police cars and wearing police and army uniforms purchased at local markets. "Impossible! Impossible!" Mr. Jabr said. "That is totally wrong; it's only rumors; it is nonsense."

Many of the claims of killings and abductions have been substantiated by at least one human rights organization working here - which asked not to be identified because of safety concerns - and documented by Sunni leaders working in their communities.

American officials, who are overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and the police, acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct American knowledge.

But they also say it is difficult, in an already murky guerrilla war, to determine exactly who is responsible. The American officials insisted on anonymity because they were working closely with the Iraqi government and did not want to criticize it publicly.

The widespread conviction among Sunnis that the Shiite-led government is bent on waging a campaign of terror against them is sending waves of fear through the community, just as Iraqi and American officials are trying to coax the Sunnis to take part in nationwide elections on Dec. 15.

Sunnis believe that the security forces are carrying out sectarian reprisals, in part to combat the insurgency, but also in revenge for years of repression at the hands of Saddam Hussein's government.

Ayad Allawi, a prominent Iraqi politician who is close to the Sunni community, charged in an interview published Sunday in The London Observer that the Iraqi government - and the Ministry of Interior in particular - was condoning torture and running death squads.

The allegations raise the possibility of the war being fought here by a set of far messier rules, as the Americans push more responsibility for fighting it onto the Iraqis. One worry, expressed repeatedly by Americans and Iraqis here, is that an abrupt pullout of American troops could clear the way for a sectarian war.

One Sunni group taking testimony from families in Baghdad said it had documented the death or disappearance of 700 Sunni civilians in the past four months.

.. El Salvador?