Il Guardian accusa gli USA di aver usato fosforo e napalm sui civili

[pietro]

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out? Tuesday November 15, 2005

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."
White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".
White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."
Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
The invaders have been forced into a similar climbdown over the use of napalm in Iraq. In December 2004, the Labour MP Alice Mahon asked the British armed forces minister Adam Ingram "whether napalm or a similar substance has been used by the coalition in Iraq (a) during and (b) since the war". "No napalm," the minister replied, "has been used by coalition forces in Iraq either during the war-fighting phase or since."
This seemed odd to those who had been paying attention. There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.
So in January this year, the MP Harry Cohen refined Mahon's question. He asked "whether mark 77 firebombs have been used by coalition forces". The US, the minister replied, has "confirmed to us that they have not used mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time". The US government had lied to him. Mr Ingram had to retract his statements in a private letter to the MPs in June.
We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.
Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces? Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP who turned from peace campaigner to chief apologist for an illegal war, is, as far as I can discover, the only one of these armchair warriors to engage with the issue. In May this year, she wrote to the Guardian to assure us that reports that a "modern form of napalm" has been used by US forces "are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time". How did she know? The foreign office minister told her. Before the invasion, Clwyd travelled through Iraq to investigate Saddam's crimes against his people. She told the Commons that what she found moved her to tears. After the invasion, she took the minister's word at face value, when a 30-second search on the internet could have told her it was bunkum. It makes you wonder whether she really gave a damn about the people for whom she claimed to be campaigning.
Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...642575,00.html

[pietro]

Roma, 15 novembre 2005

Gli Stati Uniti hanno usato armi chimiche in Iraq e hanno mentito a riguardo. L'utilizzo di questo genere di armi è confermato da diverse fonti americane e lo stesso Dipartimento di Stato Usa ha dovuto rettificare le prime dichiarazioni rilasciate nelle scorse settimane sull'utilizzo di armi al fosforo bianco, così come già accaduto negli scorsi anni per l'uso di armi al napalm, scrive oggi lo scrittore e giornalista britannico, George Monbiot, sulle colonne del Guardian. Fino alla scorsa settimana il dipartimento di stato americano sosteneva che il fosforo era stato usato "molto raramente a Fallujah e con lo scopo di illuminare". Veniva usato per "illuminare le posizioni del nemico di notte, non contro i nemici che combattevano". Davanti all'evidenza, continua il quotidiano britannico, giovedì hanno cambiato la loro posizione. "Abbiamo saputo che alcune delle nostre informazioni erano scorrette...Proiettili al fosforo bianco, che produce fumo, sono stati usati a Fallujah non per illuminare, ma per oscurare i movimenti delle truppe e, secondo la rivista degli artiglieri americani Field Artillery 'come una potente arma pricologica contro gli insorti nelle trincee e nelle buche'. L'articolo delle forze armate americane stabilisce che il fosforo bianco è stato usato per snidare i nemici in modo da poterli poi uccidere con l'esplosivo". Il governo americano, continua Monbiot, in altre parole sembra ammettere che il fosforo bianco è stato usato a Fallujah come arma chimica.

Ora che sappiamo che bombe al fosforo e al napalm sono state sganciate contro gli iracheni, perché - si chiede Monbiot- gli stessi falchi che hanno sostenuto la guerra in Iraq per il bene del popolo iracheno "non hanno alzato la loro voce contro l'uso di armi non convenzionali da parte delle forze della coalizione?".

"Ci hanno detto che la guerra in Iraq era necessaria per due ragioni - scrive Monbiot - Saddam Hussein era in possesso di armi chimichi e batteriologiche che avrebbe potuto usare un giorno contro un altro paese. E gli iracheni dovevano essere liberati dal suo regime di oppressione che, tra gli altri crimini, aveva usato armi chimiche per ucciderli. Tony Blair, Colin Powell,
William Shawcross (scrittore e giornalista televisivo, ndr), David Aaronovitch (regista e presentatore tv, ndr), Nick Cohen (giornalista, ndr) Ann Cwwyd (parlamentare laburista, ndr) e molti altri portavano ad esempio l'uso dei gas da parte di Saddam contro i curdi ad Halabja nel 1988. E accusavano quanti si opponevano alla guerra di non avere a cuore il benessere degli iracheni".

"Saddam rischia la pena di morte nel processo che lo vede accusato di omicidio, tortura, ingiusta incarcerazione e uso di armi chimiche - conclude lo scrittore - Saddam è certamente colpevole di tutti questi capi di imputazione. Come, a quanto pare, sembrano quelli che lo hanno rovesciato".


l'articolo del Guardian tradotto da Rainews

[yurj]

Originally posted by pietro
Fino alla scorsa settimana il dipartimento di stato americano sosteneva che il fosforo era stato usato "molto raramente a Fallujah e con lo scopo di illuminare". Veniva usato per "illuminare le posizioni del nemico di notte, non contro i nemici che combattevano". Davanti all'evidenza, continua il quotidiano britannico, giovedì hanno cambiato la loro posizione. "Abbiamo saputo che alcune delle nostre informazioni erano scorrette...Proiettili al fosforo bianco, che produce fumo,

"produce fumo"

Cioè quando una persona si scoglie, produce fumo.