NYT: Insurgents Using Dirty Bombs Against Iraqi Civilians

[DeepModem Mom]

Insurgents Using Dirty Bombs Against Iraqi Civilians
By DAMIEN CAVE and AHMAD FADAM
Published: February 21, 2007

BAGHDAD, Feb. 21 — For the third time in a month, insurgents deployed a new and deadly tactic against Iraqi civilians today: A dirty bomb combining explosives with poisonous chlorine gas.

A pickup track carrying canisters of the gas, which burns the skin and can be fatal after only a few concentrated breaths, exploded near a diesel-fuel station in southwestern Baghdad, killing at least 5 people and sending another 75 to hospitals, wheezing and coughing, for treatment, Interior Ministry and medical officials said.

On Tuesday, a tanker truck filled with chlorine exploded north of Baghdad, killing 9 people and wounding 148, including 42 women and 52 children.

At least one other attack with chlorine occurred on Jan. 28 in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar, according to American military statements. Sixteen people died after a dump truck with explosives and a chlorine tank blew up in Ramadi.

The attacks had the potential to be much deadlier, but seem to have been poorly executed, burning much of the chemical agent rather than spreading it. Still, Iraqi and American officials condemned the attacks as an effort to bring a new level of fear and havoc to Iraq as a new security plan for Baghdad takes shape....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-baghdad.html?hp

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "Let Freedom Reign!"

We'll get peace with honor, someday.

[JoseNarof]

2. Oh God!

I thought it had gotten as ugly as it cold! Prayers for those poor Iraqis.

[saigon68]

27. USAF used naplam and CBUs on the same civilians

A little willie pete also

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.

The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

'Shake 'n Bake'

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

[maddezmom]

3. interesting and just yesterday:Sunni insurgents seen to maneuver for advantage in Baghdad

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Sunni insurgents are maneuvering for advantage against a US crackdown in Baghdad, but US defense officials said they discern no new strategy despite some unusual tactics in the latest violence.

The tactics included a rare coordinated attack on a US military outpost, and the detonation of a chlorine tanker truck, as well as car bombings and suicide attacks that claimed the lives of dozens of civilians.

Although no helicopters were downed in the latest violence, the US military is also concerned that a recent spate of shootdowns means that a key cog in the US military machine is suddenly at greater risk.

But US defense officials here and in Iraq said it was too early to tell whether insurgents are pursuing a new strategy, or reacting to opportunities they perceive as US and Iraqi forces mount a new security operation in Baghdad.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070220/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitary_070220224335

[mcctatas]

4. I cannot believe how bad things have gotten..

someone needs to flat out say, "It is the fault of this administration and the congress that would not allow oversight for the past 6 years". They have blood on thier hands, every last one!

[redqueen]

7. Well said! They REFUSED to allow oversight!

And Dems on the Hill should ALL call them on it... fantastic idea.

[Salviati]

5. Again with the corruption of terminology...

I've never seen "dirty bomb" used to describe anything but a conventional bomb designed to distribute radioactive material across an area. In the dictionary, all the definitions include distribution of radioactive material.

Don't get me wrong, chlorine gas is nasty stuff, but it's inclusion in a bomb doesn't make it a "dirty bomb" in any normal sense of the word. It's just as bad as calling poison gas a weapon of mass destruction, it just confuses two distinct things in order to increase the feeling of threat.

[patrice]

9. That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't it be better for the NYTs to refer to Chemical Weapons? n/t

[bananas]

10. I thought they might be talking about depleted uranium

when I saw the headline.
There's a reason for this propaganda - we'll find out within a few weeks.

[aquart]

11. The NYT would make yellow journalism proud.

[endarkenment]

12. Exactly. WTF?

Let the Psyops Reign. Confuse befuddle bewilder. The guy in the clown suit will show you the way.

[Kagemusha]

16. I completely agree with you

Not that this tactic is good! But it is not what everyone understood a 'dirty bomb' as being.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Actually, that was a corruption itself - the original "dirty bomb"

was a tactical nuke detonated at or below ground level to maximize the radioactive particles that would be dispersed, as opposed to an air burst which would have a greater radius of effect but less fallout.

When they first started talking about a "dirty bomb" as a standard explosive dispersing radioactive particles, my first thought was of the old definition, and how they were conflating tactical nukes with terror weapons.

[patrice]

19. Weren't they also supposed to be somewhat smaller in

megatonage so they'd destroy fewer resources, but made with proportionally more of the more highly radioactive materiel than "regular" nukes (hence the relative descriptor "dirty"), so they'd kill more people, but leave useful, ahmmm, capital intact? At least that's what we said when we debated nuclear proliferation in high school a ver long time ago.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. That, too. Cobalt, or other, coating, smaller megatonage, less blast

damage but greater lethalness. I guess they finally figured out that the cleanup after a 'dirty bomb' would have to be so intensive that they weren't really practical, tactically. The conversation was a lot different in the 60s.

Then they came up with the neutron bomb.

[patrice]

22. Yeah, that radiation problem . . .

High school debaters in those days said the bombs would be used on military bases and in the suburbs, away from the manufacturing and natural resources that would help the "victor" dominate the defeated country economically. Probably as fantastic a notion as "surgical strike" is.

[bananas]

25. I guess you could call the neutron bomb a "clean" bomb

it would sterilize the area and not leave any radiation.

[BluePatriot]

24. I agree.

Deliberate confusion of terminology...dirty bombs are radioactive, they should call it chemical weapons usage perhaps. But then everyone might be screaming "WMD!" "WMD!" when that wouldn't be entirely accurate either, so who knows why they chose this term.

[BootinUp]

6. This must be the work of the Iranians /sarcasm

[Danieljay]

8. Dirty bombs... what is white phospherous? Clean? The US used it...

Yes, this is bad. But our "clean bombs" are just as damaging, not to mention our use of white phospherous...

sick.

Iraq War
Main article: White phosphorus use in Iraq

The United States Army has acknowledged using these bombs in the Iraq War in areas such as Fallujah.<4> After the diffusion on November 8, 2005 of Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, a documentary film by Sigfrido Ranucci on Italy's RaiNews24, which accused the US Army of having use in an offensive manner white phosphorus, as a chemical weapon, Dept. of Defense spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC on November 15 that WP had been used as an antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah:<5> Venable pointed out that WP was effective against enemy forces in covered positions that were protected from high explosives. "One technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."

On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace defended use of WP, declaring that WP munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military", used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, adding: "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening". Peter Pace argued that conventional weapons can be more dangerous than non-conventional weapons: "A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does".<6>

[endarkenment]

13. Cleans corpses right down to the bone. A very clean bomb. nt.

[saigon68]

28. Use of Willie Pete is a War Crime

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

'Shake 'n Bake'

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage.


"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 where we could not get effects on them with HE . We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out," the article said.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Israel used radiation bombs against Lebanese civilians

and the US has used them in Fallujah and other cities in Iraq.

Exploding a chlorine truck is not considered a "dirty" bomb, the term only applies to radioactive materials. A dirty bomb would make the area in which it exploded area uninhabitable for quite some time. A dirty bomb exploded near Wall Street would be quite a formidable problem to overcome.

[furman]

23. No evidence of radioactive weapons used

Israel has admitted to using phosphorus weapons. Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1783385.htm

No evidence of uranium-based munitions in Lebanon: UN

UN experts have found no evidence to support a press report that Israel used depleted uranium (DU) munitions during the July-August conflict in Lebanon, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says.

"The samples taken by the UNEP scientists show no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU or other radioactive material," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said in a statement.

"In addition, no DU shrapnel, or other radioactive residue was found. The analysis of all smear samples taken shows no DU, nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples."

In October, the British daily The Independent

The craters, at Khiam and At-Tiri, were caused by Israeli heavy or guided bombs and showed "elevated radiation signatures," the Independent quoted Chris Busby, the British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, as saying.

Britain's ministry of defence had confirmed the level of uranium isotopes in the samples, which were also being tested by mass spectrometry at a laboratory in Oxfordshire, the report had said.

The UNEP statement said a sub-team of inspectors looking specifically at the DU issue had visited 32 sites south and north of the Litani river.

"Following strict field procedures, a range of smear, dust and soil samples were taken. The samples were analysed in October-November at an internationally-recognised laboratory in Switzerland," it said.

UNEP had sent the team as part of an assessment into environmental damage caused by the conflict.

The investigation confirmed that Israel had used artillery and mortar ammunition containing white phosphorus, the statement said.

Israel says that none of its weapons are illegal and acknowledged on October 22 that it used the phosphorus.

Human rights groups have long argued that phosphorus weapons, which cause agonising injuries, should be banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[sanskritwarrior]

30. Gimme a break

I was in Fallujah in 04.......we didn't use radioactive anything.......WP on the other hand I've heard yes and no..........

[smb5850]

15. Good God

Just when you think we have reached bottom another story appears about that shows how this is getting worse and unfortunately I believe the worse is yet to come. Someday the children of Iraq will grow up (at least some of them) and I shutter to think at lengths they will go to attain their revenge upon us and our children. This is beyond bad.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Awful news, indeed, smb. On a lighter note -- welcome to DU!

[patrice]

21. Indeed!! I know I'd never forget.

Even IF all of my family got out of it alive. You could never forget being invaded. Even the most extreme "peaceniks" I know say, "If someone came here and tried to take American soil away from us, I'd be right in the front lines."

But then, apparently Cheney et al thought and still think they can be bought off. Yeah, they'll take our money, jobs, water-plants, highways, schools, hospitals, power plants etc. etc. etc. and they will smile and shake our hands, but come on . . . forget what happened? NEVER. And no American would either.

:hi: Welcome to DU smb! :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. That's because, if the situation was reversed,

Cheney et al COULD be bought off - they'd be collaborating with the enemey while their peacenik opponants have taken to the hills and streets to fight the invaders.

People expect others to do as they themselves would do - we knew there would be a disaster in Iraq because if we were invaded we would make a disaster for the invaders. Cheney expected the Iraqis to surrender and be bought off because that's how he would act.

[pampango]

34. We killed more German and Japanese civilians and the

people in those seem to have forgiven us for the most part. True, we did not start that war but we did invade them and they never invaded us. Germany never even attacked us.

We firebombed German and Japanese cities with the understanding that hundreds of thousands would die. It is pretty hard to argue that was not a war crime, other than that the victors decide who the war criminals are. In spite of those crimes people in those countries have not, by and large, harbored any lasting resentment against us.

While many in Iraq will have bad feelings for us for a long time, I imagine they might also have some slightly negative feelings for the people and groups that actually conduct the bombings of markets and schools. They may be reticent to express those feelings in the years to come, because those same groups will be their neighbors.

Are we responsible for creating the conditions for this civil war? Yeah. But we share responsibility for the ensuing carnage with the civil warriors themselves. If my neighbor attacks my family because the mayor has disbanded the police force to save money, I will be mad at the mayor, but I will be pretty upset with my neighbor, as well.

[Ian David]

26. Not a "Dirty Bomb." A Kitchen-sink bomb.

I once made one by accident trying to clean Rottweiler poop out of white grout.

[Nevernose]

29. Why would you need to DETONATE a Cl tanker truck?

If your plan were to kill people with chlorine gas, wouldn't it be easier to just park the truck in a residential neighborhood at night, or near a school, hospital, or church in session, and open the tank, allowing the gas to leak out, and then run like hell?

I'm not posting ideas for terrorism here, as I'm sure ACTUAL terrorists/guerillas/insurgents/whatever have brainstormed this far more than I have. But I do remember growing up in Texas, south of Houston, near Dow Chemical and just a few yards from a major rail line: chlorine gas emergencies weren't all that uncommon. It was shipped regularly and there were frequent "potential accidents." If a train engineer burped wrong, an emergency was declared. A few times there were actual evacuations, and at least once people were either sickened or killed.

Either these are very stupid insurgents, or, as I suspect, they weren't so much "using" chlorine as they were blowing something up and chlorine happened to be in the vicinity.

[sanskritwarrior]

31. If you time the explosion right....

you can disperse the chemical very far and wide without burning much of it off........

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. OTOH, one guy in a space suit could walk up to the leaking

tanker and plug it up.

It's hard to plug up something that's in 1500 pieces.

[Snellius]

35. Ironic - they get WMDs AFTER we invade to rid them

so they finally find WMDs. there weren't any there BEFORE we invaded. now that they've got them, maybe we'll just have to invade Iraq all over again to get rid of them.