Talk:Chemical weapons used in Iraq by US military, says Italian documentary

Use for illumination purposes?

I doubt that white phosphorus is actually used for illumination purposes (second paragraph, first sentence) as it is reported to burn rapidly (see Wikipedia entry). Substances like magnesium appear to be more effective for illumination. Also, phosphorus generates a lot of smoke.

Banned by Geneva protocol

I don't know if the wikipedia link I added is completely relevant or useful. However...

"Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [1] The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol."

Brianmc 19:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Anyway, I only covered about 1/3 of the articles, and that's all the time I have right now, so if anyone else wants to continue they're very welcome to do so. - Apollyon 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I'm publishing the article. - Apollyon 22:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok to publish. I just fixed what I think was a mistake. The article said that RAI alleged that the US military destroyed footage of alleged use... I removed the second "alleged", surely RAI are alleging that the footage does show that white phosphorus was used. Bill3 22:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unverified Information

MrM (or whoever else can help out), I cannot see any unverified information in this article. Note that new sources were added recently. Please be specific. --vonbergm 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think its wrong to unpublish withthout better reasons than that! International 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok to republish anyone? International 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, read this

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?, USINFO. You shoudl say something about it too.

Jeff Englehart is an left and anti-war activist, with his own blog.[1]

This is a variation of an old story (already published by Wikinews too) from Islamic sites claiming that Americans haved used napalm bombs, gas, etc in Fallujah.

I think that it is not important if this is an old or a new story, but that now it is well documented with the video: you can see the bombardments and the rests of the victims. See the original documentary in italian, english or arab. --Trek00 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The USINFO website has been last updated in January. Looking at more recent press releases (look at sources) it seems that US authorities have changed their mind on some of the assertions made on the website. (Not the first time...)--vonbergm 05:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The main sources of this information are left-wing and islamic websites. The article says that there are witnesses however the wintnesses are always anonymous. (Not the first time...)

A related article has already been published on 29 November 2004: Aljazeera says United States have used napalm in Fallujah (however the article has been deleted for some reason). And the Al Aljazeera story were an "well documented story" in video too. In my humble opinion, you should at least say what the US authorities said all about this. --Carlosar 09:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The second-to-last paragraph gives official US opinion. One could spend more time on this and quote the whole statement. I don't feel it would really add anything, but throw in the quote or expand on the paragraph if you feel that this would improve the article. --vonbergm 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

would this image be useful

• w:Image:Downtown fallujah.jpg
• w:Image:Iraqi-woman-incinerated-by-american-chemical-weapons-while-praying-with-beads--fallujah--us-war-crimes.jpg

I'm not sure if it is relevent to the article or not. If it is i'll upload it to commons and put it in. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
'is is' -> 'is' Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)