From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
US depolys chemical weapons in Iraq
International mainstream media reports the US has deployed the banned chemical weapon napalm in Iraq.
International mainstream media reports the US has deployed the banned chemical weapon napalm in Iraq.
From the initial report on 22 March:
"Over the next eight hours, the marines opened fire with their howitzers, which have a range of 30 kilometres. They were supported by US Navy aircraft, which dropped napalm.
The Pentagon has since denied that napalm was used in the attack. A navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.
"We don't even have that in our arsenal," he said.
The navy admitted to using napalm as late as 1993 in training exercises on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, but the last cannister of a vast US naval stockpile was reportedly destroyed in a public ceremony in April 2001."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749942344.html
A followup with another official denial:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/23/1048354475977.html
But here, an "embedded" CNN reporter casually mentions its use after eyewitnessing the same incident:
"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. "
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/otsc.irq.savidge/
From the initial report on 22 March:
"Over the next eight hours, the marines opened fire with their howitzers, which have a range of 30 kilometres. They were supported by US Navy aircraft, which dropped napalm.
The Pentagon has since denied that napalm was used in the attack. A navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.
"We don't even have that in our arsenal," he said.
The navy admitted to using napalm as late as 1993 in training exercises on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, but the last cannister of a vast US naval stockpile was reportedly destroyed in a public ceremony in April 2001."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749942344.html
A followup with another official denial:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/23/1048354475977.html
But here, an "embedded" CNN reporter casually mentions its use after eyewitnessing the same incident:
"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. "
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/otsc.irq.savidge/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
As a military pilot, I can confirm that the US does not use napalm. I've never seen a napalm weapon, nor have I see or heard of any way to employ such a weapon.
And perhaps this is nit-picking, but napalm is not classified as a "chemical weapon", so your headline that the US is using chemical weapons is misleading at best.
Yet another example of this "media source" lying to promote its political views. How can you honestly say you have an honest news source when it's so obviously driven by very narrow, defined political ideologies? Do you honestly think that *anything* positive about US forces would EVER be put on this site? Didn't think so.
And perhaps this is nit-picking, but napalm is not classified as a "chemical weapon", so your headline that the US is using chemical weapons is misleading at best.
Yet another example of this "media source" lying to promote its political views. How can you honestly say you have an honest news source when it's so obviously driven by very narrow, defined political ideologies? Do you honestly think that *anything* positive about US forces would EVER be put on this site? Didn't think so.
Iraq
March 2003
Recent video has shown US troops pouring dihydrogen monoxide down the throats of Iraqi POWs.
March 2003
Recent video has shown US troops pouring dihydrogen monoxide down the throats of Iraqi POWs.
I knew they would finally do something like this.
"Recent video has shown US troops pouring dihydrogen monoxide down the throats of Iraqi POWs."
That's a pretty serious charge. It also runs counter to all other observable evidence. Do you have a citation for this, so that others could investigate the source information rather than just swallow your conclusions? Thanks.
(Hmm, if there's someone in a US uniform shown doing this, then we'd need some way to make sure it's not one of the stolen uniforms in use. We know that Saddam's gang do kill Iraqi citizens without qualm, and that Americans have taken their own casualties to protect Iraqi civilians, so making sure it's not just sick propaganda would be important.)
That's a pretty serious charge. It also runs counter to all other observable evidence. Do you have a citation for this, so that others could investigate the source information rather than just swallow your conclusions? Thanks.
(Hmm, if there's someone in a US uniform shown doing this, then we'd need some way to make sure it's not one of the stolen uniforms in use. We know that Saddam's gang do kill Iraqi citizens without qualm, and that Americans have taken their own casualties to protect Iraqi civilians, so making sure it's not just sick propaganda would be important.)
dihydrogen monoxide = H20 = Water.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network