Daily Kos

Fallujah: Napalm By Any Other Name

Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 12:29:37 AM PDT

Veteran journalist Simon Jenkins made just this point in a striking piece recently in the British Sunday Times (A wrecked nation, a desert, a ghost town. And this will be called victory). "In Vietnam," he wrote, "the Americans destroyed the village to save it. In Iraq we destroy the city to save it."

It seems that, as in Vietnam where napalm and white phosphorus -- unbearably gruesome weapons -- were commonly employed, American troops have already used white phosphorus in Falluja. ("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.")

Anger in Sunni-dominated Baghdad has reached a fever pitch, as an Iraqi physician told a radio station he has examined bodies of people who seem to have died of banned chemical weapons: the bodies are swollen, are yellowish and have no smell. Asia Times Online sources in Baghdad say that people in Fallujah believe the Americans may have used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs.

Asia Times link.

In August last year, the United States admitted  dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion of Iraq.

b]The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: *"You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

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.

More word games at the Pentagon. They've recently denied reports that they used napalm against troops in Iraq. Reporters have claimed they did and so to have Air Force pilots We napalmed both those bridge approaches said one.

Turns out the weapons used were "remarkably similar" to napalm, the firebombing agent used extensively during the Vietnam War. Those burning Vietnamese kids running from giant orange balls of fire in the classic pictures were being "napalmed." Highly controversial, it was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 that the United States refused to sign. The U.S. did claim to have destroyed its napalm arsenal two years ago but here it is napalming Iraqi troops.

When is napalm not napalm? When you switch gasoline for for jet fuel apparently. The new not-napalm has the happy name of "Mark 77," which sounds more like the latest boy band than the latest firebombing agent. Marine spokesperson Col. Michael Daily explained the difference between the gasoline of napalm and jet fuel of Mark 77 in a recent email:

This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment.

Nice to know the Pentagon is environmentally-senstive when it's roasting people alive.
Category: Iraq

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 214 comments

    •  "a lot better off without Saddam"? How? (none / 0)

      At least under Saddam, the U.N. was stopping those in power from using chemical weapons on Iraqis.

      "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

      by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 09:26:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq was far FAR better off under Saddam (none / 0)

        It was even better off while ruled by Saddam and suffering under a genocidal embargo imposed by the US.  It was far FAR better off under Saddam prior to the US genocide policy.

        One of the articles linked to here points out that under direct US occupation malnutrition in children has increased.  Under Saddam kids' biggest health problem was obesity.

        The truth is America is not as humanitarian as Saddam was.

    •  Oh, no. We're not using those... Umm, okay we are. (4.00 / 3)

      From GlobalSecurity.org
      MK 77 Mod 5

      In March 2003 the Pentagon denied a report in The Age that napalm had been used in an attack by US Navy planes on an Iraqi position at Safwan Hill in southern Iraq. A Navy official in Washington, Lieutenant-Commander Danny Hernandez, said: "We don't even have that in our arsenal." The report was filed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was attached to units of the First US Marine Division.

      The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

      There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora." [emphasis added]

      The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Depeartment of Defense had been in fact been sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.

      An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.

      Formerly, a voice of objective reason in the partisan din of the U.S. National Security community.

      by mustang dvs on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 10:14:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now Don't That Make (4.00 / 6)

    ya proud to be an Murican?  Don't it make ya proud?

    You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

    by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 12:34:12 AM PDT

    •  Riiiight (4.00 / 2)

      Matt, I found enough for seven or eight diaries. I can't freaking believe all this.
      •  God, Please Tell Me (4.00 / 4)

        this was the worst you found, otherwise I'm gonna launch my lunch.

        Not to mention the diary above about shooting worshipers in the mosques.

        We are the Mongol hordes.  We're making the Nazis look normal.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:10:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you wanna have some fun? (4.00 / 2)

          http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

          there's a small box in the upper left corner now with full coverage of fallujah. you know those pics slowly leaked to the press? aljazeera got em all.

        •  This is the worst of the worst (4.00 / 5)

          If there's enough interest in this diary, I'll post the munitions info, Geneva and International Law material.

          There's a lot of new "extraordinary rendition" info, which has been diaried before but could be updated. Kids were at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo. I only hope to God people outside the U.S. know not all of us voted to continue this madness.

          •  About Four Months Ago (4.00 / 6)

            I read about a poll of young people in Canada.  The ages were 16-24.  And just over 40% of those young people said Americans were "evil".

            That was the word they chose. Evil.  That's just from the neighbor up north. I keep wondering what poll results would be if this poll were taken in say, a ME nation.

            I really need to see your future diaries. Especially interested in the one about the GC.

            http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/110BB55F-6635-4F73-A470-FE1DF9D8ED41.htm

            You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

            by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:40:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Canada (none / 0)

              I saw figures pre-election that 80% of Canadians polled were against Bush. And yet, he comes for a visit. Probably looking forward to a tussle with the Mounties.

              I hope the outrage over this horrific news from Falluja will re-ignite the anti-war protests.

              The main reason given for 'staying the course' in Iraq is that a civil war among Iraqis will ensue. Could it be worse than what is happening now? The Iraqis don't have
              -an air force
              -napalm
              -500 lb. bombs
              -Abrams tanks
              -armored vehicles
              -night vision goggles

              Also why would the White House start caring about Iraqis now? They've never even cared enough to do body counts of their civilian victims.

              pacem in terra

              This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

              by Agathena on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 10:51:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder.... (none / 1)

            I wonder what would have happened on Nov 2nd if Kerry had adopted an anti-war stance and promised that if elected he would get us out of Iraq quickly, with minimum loss of life and property.  Instead, he simply became a Bush clone, vowing to "stay the course".  I think he would have won.  There must be millions of voters who went with Bush simply because they viewed both candidates as identical on the subject of Iraq.  Mary Scott pointed this out in an earlier diary.  

            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers.

            by tomathawl on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 07:28:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  *sigh* (none / 0)

              I've come around to this line of thinking in the last couple of weeks. As far as I can tell, we're not helping by being there (the occasional public works project notwithstanding), maybe we should just pull out & let the Iraqis do their thing. If Bush-league were the negotiating kind, he could have probably worked a deal with the Arab League nations and the EU to step in with security & aid as we stepped out.

              We're not going to get the job done ourselves, and as long as Bush-league insists on doing things his way, we're not going to get help.

              Hatred is murder (1 John 3:15)
              Read FAR Future, a serial peak-oil novel, at my blog.

              by dirtroad on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 07:02:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  hmm (none / 0)

          I refrained from troll ratiing your comment, because your not a troll. But lets not equate this with Nazis extreminating 6 million civillians in gas chambers, really.

          It's still very chilling I agree, and we should make a lot of noise about it, but that final comment I found very inappropriate indeed.

          •  Genocide under Clinton continued by Bush? (4.00 / 2)

            Clinton's treatment of Iraq was very similar to the Holocaust, especially in the ghetto period.  Around a million Iraqis died, and the rate is now increased under Bush.  America turned Iraq into one huge ghetto where the Iraqis had civilian infrastructure removed, food restricted, insanitary conditions and then "let nature take its course" just as the Nazis did to the Jews (and also the lesser known gendercide by the Nazis of Russian male conscripts - about 2 million as I recall).

            This ghettoization of Iraq has continued under Bush - no santiation, no water, no electricity, no medicines to prevent basic deseases.  Whether this is with the intent of genocide (as Clinton and Bush senior's policy was) is hard to say.  The Falloojeh massacre seems to point to it becoming a deliberate policy even if it wasn't before.

            Having said all that I suspect the guy you were replying to was talking about Hitler's Crime against the peace and not his handling of the jews (for some reason everyone just assumes that is what is refered to in any mention of Hitler).

          •  I Was Addressing BEHAVIOUR (none / 0)

            not NUMBERS of dead.

            Got that?

            You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

            by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 02:31:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I GOT IT (none / 0)

              But the Behaviour ISNT EVEN THE SAME !

              We arent herding millions or even 10's into trains and then gassing them at the station when they arrive, seperating out their clothing, and ripping out gold teeth and selling it all off.

              •  For some it will never be 'the same' (none / 1)

                Sometimes I get the impression that even if America were rounding people up putting them on trains and killing them by gassing them someone would complain that you couldn't compare it to what the Nazis did because they used some gas other than Zyklon B to asphyxiate them.

                Hey does anyone else recall that in Afghanistan the US loaded people on to trucks and asphyxiated them to death?  Guess that doesn't count though, right?  Trucks not trains.  Gotcha.  Totally inappropriate comparison.  Why, they weren't even Jewish.

                What we have found is that certainly several hundred prisoners, perhaps many hundreds of prisoners, instead of being sent home or sent to prison in the normal way, were loaded secretly into freight container trucks, which were then sealed, and they were left to asphyxiate

              •  How much do you bet (none / 0)

                I can find an example of American forces taking the gold fillings out of people's teeth?  Hmm.  I think I remember a story like that from Afghanistan too.....
                •  Well I tell you what (none / 0)

                  You keep equivicating US actions to the holocaust, and then sit back and enjoy Permanent Republican Rule, because not even I would support that kind of position from a Democrat.

                  The US is not, and has not, and has no policy to, commit genocide, at least not since Andrew Jackson.

                  Of course attrocities have been committed and we should hold both the perpetrators and their civillian leadership accountable, but if you run around singing holocaust everytime some Arab gets shot in the head...you're going to be in a shrinking minority.

                  •  YOU brought up the Holocaust (none / 0)

                    The US did have a policy of genocide in Iraq.  Not one but two different UN directors each of many years experience resigned from the UN food for oil program both describing the illegal US embargo as "genocide".  Released US military records note the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure with the aim of increasing deaths due to poor sanitation and lack of clean water.

                    Perhaps you could explain why you think US policy was NOT genocide?

                    •  UN Embargo (none / 0)

                      As i understand it, the embrago and sanctions were put in place by the UN, hence we're legal. One of the arguments for going into Iraq was fear of lifting of the sanctions.

                      therefore hardships caused by them were UN policy not soley US policy.

                      ON the military records issue you mention, do you have a source I can review ? I would be interested and appreciative.

                      Genocide:     The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

                      I do not see any systematic effort or evidence for widespread extermination of Iraqi's of any subgroup. Even in Fallujah, where I certainly believe war crimes are being committed, 200,000 residents were allowed to leave. Though they criminally refused to let men leave who were non combatants. The rationale for that choice I can understand, but still think it was deploreable.

                      bottom line, which is where I think you and I may be disagreeing. I DO NOT think that our actions prime objective (or any objective) is to kill civillians, even though that is one of the significant consequences, and one where I think the war is totally out of control now.

                      I do believe that the current administration is incompetant enough to BELIEVE that some civillians are in fact combatants, when they clearly are not.

                      •  UN sanctions, US embargo (none / 0)

                        There was a UN set of sanctions.  By international law it could not block food, medicine or humanitarian aid (and had explicit wording to that effect).  The criminal US embargo blocked all these items.  The term "dual use" was created as a PR term for humanitarian aid that the US wanted to block.  This was illegal and was covered by the UN resolution.

                        In short the US used the UN sanctions as cover for genocide.  Clever really.

                        You know on that source for the military records I don't have it.  It might have been on the third world traveller site...  Some site like that.  I've tried to find it again a couple of times but only briefly so it might take a little effort to find it.

                        Sorry.  I think the stuff you'd need to search for would be some report on the effect of the embargo on the Iraqi population (in particular the effects on deseases).  It was a US analysis of the humanitarian situation as effected by the embargo and mentioned in passing that the bombing had added to the embargo effects (if you recall back to 1990 the embargo preceeded the first war).

                        As for Falloojeh I would say the separation out of battle aged men so they can be eliminated is a classic gendercide act.  It's the most common form of genocide there is.

                        The official genocide treaty definition of genocide is pretty wide - wider than the definition you gave anyway.  Basic idea remains the same.  As with murder's definition, intention shouldn't be taken too narrowly.  

        •  we are NOT making the nazis look normal! (none / 0)

          nothing would make the nazi's systematic attempt at genoicide look normal.  you're comparing using napalm to the gassing of 6 million jews?  i understand your frustration and pain, but your analogy is specious.  

          on the other hand, i would be much less apt to challenge the assertion that we're making saddam look normal...

          •  my reply was to mattman btw... (none / 0)

            'nuff said...
          •  My Reply to You Is Above (none / 0)

            and my statement stands as posted.

            You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

            by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:44:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  US behaviour in Iraq is worse than Holocaust was (none / 1)

            You really want to go down this road?  Sure the numbers are worse (at least so far; the Nazis aren't increasing their death toll) but both are in the seven digits.  Also I'm not counting the other megamurders that America has been involved in around the world.  Latin America, Africa, Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines and many smaller killings.

            The context of the Holocaust was a world war where Germany was fighting for it's very survival.  When people are fighting for their survival they do a lot of bad things they wouldn't normally do.  Need I remind you of the war crimes on the part of the allies?  War twists men's souls.  Total war knows no bounds.  Total war when you are losing...?  The horror of the American slaughter in Iraq is that it's so goddam unnecessary.  America isn't in the slightest danger.  This isn't wold war two.  You're just trying to maintain an economic edge for your markets.

            What the hell would America do if it was ever actually threatened?  If they cheerfully murder by the million when it isn't even a big deal?

            Holocaust isn't the most rapid period of mass killings.  I beleive that title goes to the Rwanda massacres - which America played a part in causing (the massacre happened as a result of a US backed invasion and US backed assassination of the president of Rwanda).

            •  fighting for survival? (none / 0)

              "The context of the Holocaust was a world war where Germany was fighting for its very survival."
              I don't understand your comment AT ALL....Two main points:
              Germany started WWII by invading and occupying as much of Europe as possible, and, much more importantly, the Holocaust had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with Germany's war strategy, and it certainly had nothing to do with Germay's self-defense, as you seem to suggest.  I'm sorry to say, your comment is extremely offensive, even if you didn't meant it to be, it's not historically accurate and it's vaguely apologist.
    •  Yes! (none / 0)

      I will always be proud to be an American. Regardless. I may find many things done by our government despicable, criminal, ect. But that will not change my being proud of being an American.

      "The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.

      by Ranger CN on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 12:54:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  don't fall into the trap (4.00 / 6)

        of thinking that "patriotism" means "supporting the government." it means the opposite: criticising the government when they screw up, and criticising them until they stop screwing up.
        •  Reread (4.00 / 3)

          My patriotism is unrelated to the government. Early american patriots went to war against the existing(british) government. Don't let a bad government make you ashamed of being American.

          "The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.

          by Ranger CN on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 02:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Deeply Ashamed of Being American (4.00 / 8)

            The Department of Defense always tests new weapons systems on the most vulnerable people on the planet.....unarmed Iraqis are now the most vulnerable people on the planet because they have the full weight of the AMERICAN MILITARY crushing them...Who knows what we are going to learn next..But we are always the last to know..

            I am deeply ashamed of being AMERICAN.....if there were a way to put the people in charge of this war on trial for WAR CRIMES we should do it...in fact.....the use of the term WAR CRIMES needs to be voiced more frequently because that is what this whole war is....a CRIME of monsterous proportions..

            It is the job of the media to know the laws....not just be stenographers....WHERE IS THE MEDIA.....???  Talking about Desperate Housewives??

      •  The people running our government are not American (none / 1)

        The people doing this shit are not Americans. They are neo-fascists. I am an American, and I oppose them.

        Which isn't to say that we haven't stooped this low before-- and well before Vietnam. Watch "The Fog of War". McNamara--as a young officer under General LeMay-- firebombed the cities of Japan with incendiary bombs, which were nearly as horrible as these. There's a long history of these weapons; they were used to massacre civilian Japanese 20 years before the first American troops set foot in Vietnam.

        What's more scary is the tendency of people to become what they are fighting against. It's a strong pattern: to fight WWII we adopted jingoistic nationalism and massacres of non-combatants, to fight "terror" we use "shock and awe"-- which is, um, terror.

        I don't know that there's any way out of it except to keep principles always in mind, and to call it as you see it-- and seek a negotiated peace, or simply walk away from the fight if winning it requires becoming something you don't want to be.

        •  I oppose them also (none / 0)

          that still does NOT make me ashamed to be an American. I draw a clear and unquestionable distinction between my view of our current leaders and my pride in being American.

          "The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.

          by Ranger CN on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 11:39:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but what exactly does that mean (4.00 / 4)

            Are you proud of belonging to a nation founded in genocide? Slavery? exploitation of "free" workers? Racial discrimination? Imperialist expansionism for over a hundred years? Only the good bits, and pretending no association with the bad bits?

            Did you have anything to do with being an American, are you an immigrant - or were you merely born one, like the rest of us? In which case as well be proud as of having eyes.

            It seems that this "proud to be" Country Music rhetoric is at best meaningless ("For he is an Englishman!") and at worst a bludgeon, like the word "patriotism," in the mouths of most people. As well say "I am proud to be a human being" - you didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, and as a species we have both glory and shame enough to cancel each other out.

            "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

            by bellatrys on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:01:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i have (none / 1)

              this conversation quite often, where i say what bush is doing is bad, and the person i'm talking to says "but what about the good?"

              imho, the good does not cancel out the bad. if the other team scores a touchdown, it does not negate your touchdown and reset the score back to zero.

              if there is bad being done, there is bad being done. that also doesn't mean the good should be eliminated with the bad.

              example: building 1 school in fallujah vs killing 100 civillians. one does not justify the other. but, the bad should be punished and the good should be multiplied.

              •  America has destroyed the Iraqi education system (none / 1)

                It's not just the bombed shool buildings or the embargo on all school supplies for 13 years, or firing all the teachers (who weren't killed, shot, kidnapped or fled the country) it's the fact that it's too dangerous in Iraq to let children out. Iraq used to be a center of educational excellence.  America has destroyed Iraqi education along with everything else.
    •  Maybe... (4.00 / 11)

      they really meant to call it Mark 7:7
    •  The USA (4.00 / 1)

      -has turned into Frank Miller's monomaniac, callous, somewhat deranged Batman from the 1980's Dark Knight albums. Britain's a reluctant Robin.

      As a citizen of another US ally, I am increasingly ashamed to be so. I wish NATO would be thrown in the dustbin of history. During the Cold War it may have been indispensable but now I feel Europe should take its chances with the Russian bear alone.

  •  We need Tom Paine ... and Webster, too (4.00 / 1)

    Where is Webster when you need him? I am not at all surprised to hear this news. What this administration is doing constitutes a verbal shock and awe of such magnitude that we are rendered senseless.

    Every time we start to nail Bush & Co on one front, they hit again (and the media isn't even trying to keep up/analyze/question).

    We are going to pay, pay, pay for this.

    In the meantime, I am just waiting for some people (FBI) to show up at my anarchist headquarters (living room) to confiscate my weapons of mass destruction (computer) before sending me on a little vacation (please call a lawyer for me).

    "On some hill of despair the bonfire you kindle can light the great sky - though, of course, to make it burn you have to throw yourself in." - Galway Kinnell

    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

    by JuliaAnn on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 12:51:18 AM PDT

    •  Thomas Paine, yes (none / 0)

      We could sure use him right about now. As far as anarchy, this is all over the 'net - it's just been obscured a little by referring to the napalm as "firebombs," "incendiary devices" and "Mark-77." But it was used at Safwan Hill in 2003, not long after the invasion of Iraq.
  •  what i'm really worried about (none / 0)

    is not the weapons themselves, but the callous and almost carefree way they feel about lying to everyone. you found this, but i think the lying, misdirection, and obsfucation far overshadows it.
    •  I found some hints (none / 0)

      In recent reports from Fallujah. But it's been online since August 2003 - just filed under Mark-77, not napalm.
    •  here's an example of callous lies (4.00 / 3)

      A US General Explains the Difference Between Secure, Clear, and Controlled.

      REGNER: We like to use the terms "secure" and we like to use the terms "clear."  "Control" is not necessarily a term that really fits into what I want to explain to you.
      ...

      Let me say this:  [When the forces] can go anywhere at any time throughout that city.  That basically means that a hundred percent of the city is secure.

      Now "secure" is a -- in a military definition, is very similar to "control," but it does not mean clear.  "Clear" -- we see Marines right now -- within the last half-hour, we've got Marines that are involved in fighting in certain portions of this city.  It's true there are some portions of the city that we would probably say are more clear than others.  But to give you a mathematical percentage or to say this block in, for example, the northwest corner is most likely clear, or in the south -- correction -- in the northeast corner is very clear.  But to say what we would like to say, again, as a warfighter, is that the city is basically secure, is secure.  We have and we can go anywhere we want in that city.

      they also have their own definitions of "insurgent", "murder," and "civillian." i swear we're living in 1984. (Heh i'm trying to get this word used instead of Orwellian: O'Reillian)

    •  Or the way they feign (4.00 / 6)

      success, bravado, "We're making progress!", "the insurgents are on the run!" when, actually, they're so desperate that they're reduced to using internally banned chemical weapons to fight the insurgency.  Just like that, spreading freedom is quickly reduced to firebombing the different factions -- and it's not like any of this is going to stop the eventual civil war.

      It's too perfect.  No chemical weapons, or next to none, in Saddam's arsenals -- just like nuclear and biological.  Nothing there.  But the "coalition" introduced the same sort of weapon we were screaming that Saddam might have, might use against his own people, and we use them against Saddam's own people.  Not to defend the insurgents who are a pretty bloody bunch (or I should say bunches), but how could the US not have known that knocking off the party of one ethnic group and positioning another to "democratically" take over most of the reins of government wouldn't lead to this kind of thing going on indefinitely?  At what point, you have to wonder, did napalming them start looking like an attractive option?  What about torturing prisoners?  Was it always in the cards or is this another instance of Pentagon desperation?  It's hard to know with this crew.

      The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete -- XTC

      by tlaura on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:56:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (none / 0)

        there was so much doublespeak going on, i just gave up collecting it. the one from the general above was the last.
      •  No Victory Here (4.00 / 5)

        AP photographer, Bilal Hussein, tried to escape the city by swimming the Euphrates River but, in his own words, "changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river"--including a family of five that he personally witnessed being gunned down. It's no surprise that such descriptions may well stir grim memories of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which men, women and children were indiscriminately slaughtered and their village torched.

        But there is no victory here. If we were internationally reviled for our preemptive attack on Iraq, we have exponentially increased that revulsion with our barbaric slaughter in Fallujah. We have created far more enemies than we have killed, enemies who hate us now and will hate us forever. Enemies who will show us the same mercy the Marine showed the wounded prisoners in the mosque. For these are the memories that do not fade when the full circle of senseless, ceaseless slaughter comes round.

        http://www.everyweek.com/News/News.asp?no=4476

        •  It's a clusterf-ck (4.00 / 5)

          of epic proportions.  I wonder sometimes if the occupation could have been pulled off competently, I mean in such a way that a moderate hawk might think the possibility-for-democracy/no Saddam benefits greater than the civilian deaths/ image-of-US-as-international-thugs costs.  I was always against the war and marched against it (and I ain't the marching type) because I didn't think it could, not by the Bushies, but not really by anyone, not with the inherent limitations of military protocol and the way soldiers are recruited and the anti-peacekeeping animus in defence circles and just the basic demographic and historical situation in Iraq (not that I knew a whole lot about it back then).  But I do wonder how much of the current heartbreaking clusterf-ck is due to the sheer arrogant, myopic incompetence of this particular State Department / Pentagon / White House and how much was inevitable from the moment the first bombs fell on Baghdad.

          Pretty morbid thoughts, eh?

          The grass is always greener when it bursts up through concrete -- XTC

          by tlaura on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 02:52:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The use of language (4.00 / 6)

      (with apologies to Iain M. Banks)

      Military language is designed to distance itself from the consequences of military actions. So you get crisp little abbreviations and monikers for weapons etc. that trip lightly off the tongue.  

      Military attacks are spoken of using metaphors that make them sound hygienic and positively beneficial c.f. 'surgical strikes,' 'sanitary cordons' (and how far removed is that from ethnic cleansing?) and most obvious of all, 'military operations.'

      The tendency to use the metaphor of 'war' to describe social campaign (e.g. the war on illiteracy, and the war on poverty) also serves as a way of legitimising actual warfare.

      Just found a sermon (I'm not usually the preachy type, but that's ok, neither is this sermon) called Sashaying down the road to war that does a brilliant job of decoding the metaphors that make it easier to persuade people to forget that, in the words of Rev. John Millspaugh

          "War is precisely about killing people. By killing people, I mean taking a person, like you or I, and shoving metal into their brain, or causing them to be set on fire, or turning the air surrounding air into poison so that their lungs stop working, and their hearts stop beating, and everything about who they are and everything they were in the world, dies."

      Go read it, it shows how far the rot has set in with respect to the language used to talk about warfare.

      I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth and I am a citizen of the world -- Eugene Debs

      by dove on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:11:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Truth is the first casualty of war (none / 0)

      Hence the maxim, "Truth is the first casualty of war". The military has been proactively and enthusiastically dishonest as long as I can remember. After all, a press conference is just another tactic. Sun Tzu: "All warfare is based on deception".

      What's different, to me, is the expanding use by the government of military doublespeak and propaganada not just by the military to the press, but by the administration to the press, and by the press to the public. All propaganda, on all channels, all of the time.

      We must raise the cost of tyranny.

      by zyx zyx on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 12:53:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sun Tzu was talking (4.00 / 2)

        about deceiving the enemy's general, not about deceiving the country he was supposed to be fighting for!

        Of course, back in those primitive days in Chinese history, in the period of the Warring States, the decision to go to war was not made by the people's democratic representatives as it is now; war was launched by one man alone, the local ruler, based on the counsel of his group of advisers --

        oh, wait...

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

        by Canadian Reader on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 02:43:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A hidden point (4.00 / 3)

          A hidden point I was making was that the war is as much against the American people as against the Iraqis. The military, the politicians and their lackeys, their media mouthpieces; they lie to us because we are their enemies.

          We must raise the cost of tyranny.

          by zyx zyx on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:48:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Truth (none / 1)

      It would be interesting to see them tell the truth: "We illegally invaded Iraq". "Our entire political and military leadership are war criminals as are nearly all of our troops and mercenaries" - thank god we didn't sign that treaty on an international court!
      "We are carrying out a policy of overt genocide". "The war crimes and genocide of the Bush regime make Saddam look like Ghandi". "Iraqis were far better off under Saddam in every respect". "This war is a crusade". "If there were an election (ha ha) now Saddam would do better than Allawi". " Allawi was only appointed so he could sign more deals with Halliburton". "Allawi is a traitor".
      Yes it would be interesting to see the administration admit the truth to the US people. Do not expect it soon.
  •  oh my god (4.00 / 4)

    I had never heard that we were doing this before. I didn't think I could possibly be any more sick about what my country is doing in the name of "freedom". I honestly thought this was one of those weapons we'd never touch again.

    Maybe it's time for me to put some serious thought into that graduate program in Canada after all...

    •  gee, where have you been? (4.00 / 5)

      This has been public information for a couple months now.

      --Yes, this is partly why I'm such a cast-iron bitch who doesn't care about being nice, and you can downrate me again if you like.

      I've known about this because I try to follow military matters and have all along, just as I've known about the massacres of Afghani civilians from the start, and how there are so many more than the US press has reported, and how this sort of behavior was going to be standard in Iraq too, from the fact that they weren't counting civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

      And I also know so much goddamn history of ThisGreatNationTM to know that our claims of having been more noble than our enemies all along, and this sort of evil being new, is -- nothing new at all.

      So I tend to not have any patience left for either the nice or those who stand on trivialities.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:42:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Red Cross Strikes Out (4.00 / 4)

        Citing the "utter contempt for humanity" in a very unusual attack on BOTH sides, the Red Cross lashes out.

        Finally, the world begins to speak out.

        Finally.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4028307.stm

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 04:27:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But where is the American Red Cross? (none / 1)

          As their sister organizations are kept from delivering food and medicine to the starved and dying in Fallujah?

          On their website their is a nice cheery article about teaching children international humanitarian law and another about how HUMMER owners can become "unique" volunteers in disasters. But not even the most tepid statement of concern about Fallujah.

          Disgusting.

          Make love not war because love is lovely and war is very ugly, ya know?-U Roy

          by Rojo on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:39:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  hear hear (none / 0)

        present company excluded...

        i'm getting sick of people suddenly "waking up" or suddenly "seeing the light" after the last great atrocity.

        some of us have been fighting him since 1999. personally, i felt something was up when he set the fundraising record for a repug candidate with basically no redeeming qualities nor platform, other than "he's not a nerd like gore."

        however, i also know of some people hating him since he was with disney or the texas rangers.

    •  I'm also really unimpressed (none / 0)

      with those who are not being visited by the FBI and menaced by the secret police and are nevertheless ready to up stakes while calling others, frex, the DNC leadership, cowards...

      Yeah, way to take back the country and show a spine there! How lucky for all those wealthy and privileged enough to become Chalabis - but don't expect the rest of us, who stay either because we can't leave, or we won't leave, and either way we intend to fight this future, to welcome you back.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:25:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Al Safwan, we did tiny impoverished (4.00 / 5)

    Al Safwan on the way in, March 20/21, 2003.  It was reported in both the Sydney (SMH) paper and I believe in the Scotsman, at the time.

    I assumed then we did to to send a message.

  •  Ok, I'm gonna rant. Just a warning. (4.00 / 8)

    I'm going to rant about two things.

    The first is the media.  Has this been in the news?  NO.  Of course not.  That would be responsible reporting!  So I must congratulate the author of this diary for being a responsible reporter.  I guess we're the real media here.

    Secondly, I'm gonna be pissed if this diary doesn't get recommended, because, like I just said, this is a VERY important news item, and it needs to be out there on the front page of this site, not buried by a million "hey, look, these poll numbers just don't look right but I don't have proof even though it's highly likely that Kerry really won 48 states and stuff" diaries.

    You have found actual data.  This is real.  Napalm has been fucking BANNED INTERNATIONALLY, and it is being used in Iraq.

    ... just give up / and admit you're an asshole / you would be / in some good company...

    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 01:02:42 AM PDT

    •  Easy to get it reco'd (none / 0)

      Simply change the title to:

      Bush Twins Napalm'd

    •  Thanks, Page (4.00 / 3)

      <blush>

      I have to be honest, though. CNN has a story from March 22, 2003 by Martin Savidge about napalm in Iraq. It just never got any real play in the MSM as far as I know.

      Napalm at Safwan Hill

      BASRA, Iraq (CNN) -- We are with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines in southern Iraq. Obviously the focus of the effort here is the oil industry, the oil infrastructure. That is considered crucial. Not because of what many people have said, and criticized, that the United States wanted to grab oil. The military leaders say that is not the plan at all.

      [The plan] is to get the oil -- which is so valuable to this nation and to so many other nations in the Persian Gulf region -- back into the hands of the Iraqi people. They say it has not been under their control; it has been under Saddam Hussein's control to make him richer.

      <snip>

      One officer here said this was pretty much a crown jewel in the opening effort of the Gulf War, because now the revenues that will eventually come from this facility will help rebuild the nation after the war is over.

      I should point out that the "shock and awe" in southern Iraq took place last night.

      We were up moving into the attack positions with the ground forces as they were preparing to head into southern Iraq. They met some resistance up there at the Kuwaiti-Iraq border. Well, that was quickly resolved. They called in Tomahawk strikes and airstrikes that went on all night long.

      There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.

      It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.

  •  Aljazeera just picked it up, w/ pic (4.00 / 5)

    Falluja women, children in mass grave

    Sunday 21 November 2004, 11:54 Makka Time, 8:54 GMT    

    Many corpses remain unburied, Falluja residents say

    Residents of neighbouring Saqlawiya village have told Aljazeera that they helped bury the bodies of seventy-three women and children who were burned beyond recognition.

    "We buried them here, but we could not identify them because they were charred by the use of napalm bombs used by the Americans," said one Saqlawiya resident in footage aired on Sunday.

    There have been no reports of the US military using napalm in Falluja and no independent verification of the above statements.

    Lies in bold.

    •  And look at the Asia Times (4.00 / 3)

      Aljazeera just picked it up

      That article is going to be hard to ignore.


      "We buried them here, but we could not identify them because they were charred by the use of napalm bombs used by the Americans," said one Saqlawiya resident in footage aired on Sunday.

      If there really are the bodies of 73 women and children burned beyond recognition in a mass grave at a particular location that will be hard to cover up.

      There is also this article from Asia Times where we are told


      Anger in Sunni-dominated Baghdad has reached a fever pitch, as an Iraqi physician told a radio station he has examined bodies of people who seem to have died of banned chemical weapons: the bodies are swollen, are yellowish and have no smell. Asia Times Online sources in Baghdad say that people in Fallujah believe the Americans may have used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs.

      And of course even if some of this is not true, the longer we are forced to prevent the civilians of Fallujah from the returning the more likely these, and even worse, stories will seem.  An it looks like it may be a long time before we are able to let the people of Fallujah return.


      According to this article "US battle plans begin to unravel" in the Asia Times Online by American professor Michael Schwartz


      . . . the people of Fallujah hate the Americans and support the guerrillas (even if they may have complaints about much of what they do). This means that as soon as the people return, so will the resistance, hidden from US view because virtually all the guerrillas are residents of Fallujah with supporters in the community. They will not be turned over to the US or to Iraqi police, and they will therefore begin to mount attacks on whoever is left to guard the US-installed local government.

      If the US can't let the people return then these stories about the horrors hidden in the wreckage of the city will continue to gain currency and are sure to become even more monsterous than however bad the truth may be.

      •  mass grave, huh? (4.00 / 7)

        sounds like a reason for humanitarian intervention to me.  

        actually, most of those "saddam victim" mass graves were soldiers killed in the Iran/Iraq war we helped prolong, people slaughtered on the highway of death in the 1st gulf war, and shiites slaughtered when we told them to overthrow saddam and stood aside and watched him butcher them.  so even though saddam was a mass murderer, we bear a huge burden concerning whatever mass graves there were, and now we're creating our own filled with people killed by us alone.  terrific.  but as long as there are no female nipples on TV we're okay.

        •  we have to get the humanitar