Talk:Fallujah during the Iraq War/Archive 1

Archive 1

New information, napalm

1. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/U.S._Army_publication_confirms_United_States_1109.html
2. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
3. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/164137/436

--Striver 19:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

White Phosphorus is not Napalm. It's a *totally* different substance, and bears little to no resemblance to napalm in deployment, use, or effects. MK 77 (still in use) is much closer to napalm than WP, which is how many folks seem to be confused. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The white phosphorus debate

There's a new idea floating around that WP (White Phosphorus) is somehow an illegal chemical weapon. In the interest of somehow reducing possible edit wars, it should probably be noted that:

• 1. WP used to light a battle area would not be illegal use of the substance.
• 2. WP does not meet any of the conventional classifications of chemical weapons, as it is usually used as an incendary or lighting weapon.
• 3. Use of WP, Napalm, or any other incendary device (or even bullets) intentionally against civilians is, indeed, considered a war crime.
• 4. However, mere use of WP, explosives, etc. in a field of battle is not usually considered a war crime.
• 5. Balancing that out, use of, say the chemical di-hydrogen monoxygen, or any other chemical, with *intent* to use chemistry in order to *damage a large number of troops through the effects of that chemical*, may be considered a war crime.
• 6. However, this probably doesn't mean that di-hydrogen monoxygen should be banned from use in battle.

The "shake and bake" debate seems to focus on asserting that use of WP, in any context, would be a war crime, in an effort to criminalize any use of WP. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

John Stuart Blackton at TPM Café contributed to an interesting thread. Use of WP artillery rounds in Fallujah by the United States appears not to have been a war crime, as the U.S. is not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980). Interestingly, it is illegal for states that are signatories to Protocol III to use WP. Personally, I find the use of WP profoundly immoral, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia, is it? Billbrock 07:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Billbrock: "Personally, I find the use of WP profoundly immoral, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia, is it?" Agreed. Just state the fact that WP is used, we shouldn't preach whether it is immoral or a war crime, unless we are quoting a source which says it is. We cannot add our own opinion. Any blatant opinion should be taken out of article.Travb 16:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Article title

The article title is technically incorrect down to the fact that the Iraqi government took power on July 30, 2004. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 in 2004 recognized the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq. Afterwards, the UN and individual nations established diplomatic relations with the Interim Government and began planning for elections and the writing of a new constitution.

Perhaps we should rename the article Battle of Fallujah, Fallujah campaign or Fallujah offensive? --James Bond 11:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Operation Vigilant Resolve and Operation Phantom Fury exist. What has occured in Fallujah is more than a battle or offensive. Right now, this title is appropriate.--Looper5920 11:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  There's probably ample room for merging somewhere within this set of articles—easy availabily of media coverage aside, most of the recent operations in Iraq really don't need their own articles—but it's probably not something that we'll really be able to figure out without the benefit of hindsight. As far as this particular article is concerned, it's somewhat distinct from the military operations; my only concern would be for the neutrality of the title. Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

I would suggest changing the tense of the article which seems dominated by present rather than past tense. e.g. 'have asked' > 'had asked'. Also the phrase 'a force of over 4,000+\- U.S. and 800+\- Iraqi troops', is slightly confusing (over or +/-, not both) and lacks a reference. Isiod 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, i think they are correct.

Recent news

So, there's no coverage of the last twelve months in this article. Presumably the place is still being occupied, but I wouldn't know from this article. -LtNOWIS 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't heard, Fullujah is now off limit to reporters. -ktchong 2 November 2006

Shouldn't that be mentioned? What about the use of mercenaries in Fallujah? -TydAmaNn58 November 28 06

I don't know why you would mention it about Fallujah, mercenaries are used all over Iraq. When I was there I saw more mercs than I saw members of other Coalition militaries. Secondly, who made Fallujah off limits to reporters? I would be surprised, but I might be wrong, if the U.S. disallowed reporters into Fallujah. If anything it seems more likely that news agencies wouldn't allow their reporters to go into the city. - Atfyfe 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Images

I've found some images of the Camp Fallujah base sign that are free, but I don't know if they would be useful in this article. Please look at them and you can upload them to WikiCommons (preferred) or let me know and I can do so. You can crop the images if only a portion would be useful:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

--MECU≈talk 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

contradiction on this page

There seems to be some contradiction on this page. As it states Fallujah was the most peaceful city after the invasion (ie. 2003), but was also the most dangerous place before 2004. Can these both be right, or is there a mistake here?

Currently, it says 'Fallujah was one of the most peaceful areas of the country just after the fall of Saddam, and the arrival of US soldiers was received peacefully.' A lot apparently happened after that time, from reading the article. From my read, and recollection of the events, I think that both statements are correct. - Aaronwinborn 13:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the inside scoop. When troops first arrived in Fallujah there was not much trouble. There was no "Fight for Fallujah" during the invasion. However, it became obvious very quickly that Fallujah would be a hostile place during the occupation. The first flair-up being the late April protest at the school house, followed by a protest a day later at the mayor's office where another 2 were killed, followed by an attack on the FOB Laurie that night, followed by... followed by... So US soldiers were received peacefully, but very shortly hostility began to grow. (Atfyfe 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

The way I remember it (note: just ONE soldiers POV) in June and July of 2003, when I get there, it was not too bad during the day. The MP's who had been there a little longer made references to bad parts of town "Ambush Ally" and other things of the like. Not a place to take a midnight stroll. The night, things were hotter, hence the enforced curfew. 3ID made a tremendous effort to appeal to the people, and in my opinion ( again, see discalimer above) they made good progress. I have a picture of myself, in the middle of town, with an Iraqi citizen, helmet off, both of us grinning like fools. The situation degraded slowly after that, accelerating after the 3ID departure. By the end of my tour, we avoided town unless required, bypassing it to get to other parts of the region. (al fallujah 14:19, 5 OCT 2006 (UTC))

The first sentence of the article proper was worded in a very confusing manner. It read "Fallujah was one of the most peaceful areas of the country just after the fall of Saddam because the majority of the residents were Sunni and supported Saddam's Rule." It appears to be true that the town was peaceful for the first month of the invasion, and also that the majority of residents were Saddam supporters. However, it makes no sense to say that the residents remained peaceful after Saddam was forcibly removed from power because they supported Saddam. I changed it to say "Despite the fact that the majority of the residents were Sunni and supported Saddam's Rule, Fallujah was one of the most peaceful areas of the country just after his fall." This still states both facts without implying a causality which is clearly self-contradicting. Also, I changed the next sentence to say that the mayor is "pro-american" as opposed to "staunchly pro-american" because the cited source material says the former. Adding intensifying adjectives to quotes from your source material doesn't seem appropriate to encyclopedic language. 71.197.121.239 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)MOB

Japanese documentary about Fallujah 2004

I have just seen a film by Japanese director Doi Toshikuni about the murderous, inexcusable US air and ground attacks on civilians in Fallujah. http://www.doi-toshikuni.net/falluja2004/index.html

These are some captioned photos from the film: http://www.doi-toshikuni.net/falluja2004/e/photo/index.html

You can also see a 3-minute clip of the film: http://www.doi-toshikuni.net/falluja2004/e/index.html

--Shoshoni 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

The allegations in the sentence "There were numerous press reports of U.S. snipers firing on - and killing - unarmed civilians, including children, as well as attacking clearly marked ambulances. [6] [7]" are not supported by the two sources cited. There is no mention of US snipers attacking "clearly marked ambulances" in the two news articles cited. The only mention of a child being killed by US snipers is a resistance fighter saying his daughter was killed, which is unreliable. In addition, the phrase "numerous press reports" isn't supported by evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.131.76 (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist?

I'm curious. Does anyone think the use of the word "Terrorist" is appropriate when used to describe attacks against an occupying force? The Oxford American definition of terrorist is "The use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims," but this is a military invasion we're discussing here -- can't that term be applied to all parties involved?

From the article: Just a couple of days earlier things had been much quieter and US troops had been occupied confiscating motorbikes as a preventive measure against terrorist attacks.[4] Hendo1769 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing the word 'terrorist.' "...a preventative measure against attacks..." There really is no way to tell, without being there, who the attackers are; terrorist or insurgent. Leave the word out and it's still accurate. BingoDingo (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But it's still there. Change? It scares me looking it at since the person who wrote it probably hasn't thought much of the usage of the word 'terrorist'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.122.253 (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

International law has a definition of a combatant/insurgent based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Among the requirements is that combatant/insurgent carries his weapons openly and has a fixed and recognizable symbol that can be seen from a distance (like a soldier's uniform). If someone does not wear a uniform/badge and fires his weapon at a soldier or a civilian, he is regarded as a bandit or a terrorist, and he is outside the protection of the international law. US troops shot hundreds of such bandits during WWII. The bandits were shot on the spot - no trial was necessary.Quinacrine (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of deleted text

Would anyone object to the reinsertion of the following:

"The controversial use of white phosphorus by US forces has resulted in a large increase in birth deformities in the city. [4], [5], [6]"

I can't see any good reason for its removal.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that that sentence draws a conclusion that is not supported by the sources you provide. What would be more accurate to say is that, "Some local medical personnel, residents, and human rights activists have stated that there has been an increase in the incidence of birth deformities in the city since the fighting, which they attribute to the use of weapons like depleted uranium munitions and white phosphorous." Joshdboz (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

These are changes I made to remove suggestive or leading language used.

I changed '...threw down uniforms and ran away.' to '...discarded uniforms and deserted.'

I also removed the comment that the limits placed on embedded journalists were 'to protect the troops.' I felt this comment suggested that this was the only reason journalists were limited in what they could report, which is a highly controversial point. I realise that just saying they were limited, as I have done, may be suggestive but it was the most neutral way to portray the limited nature of the following information without entering a discussion on embedded journalism. Isiod 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any non-American, non-British sources that can back up the various assertions in the article?--Guid123 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

is this propaganda?

Can anyone verify that the following was actually reported by an embedded journalist?

"# Some of the tactics said to be used by the insurgents included playing dead and attacking, surrendering and attacking, and rigging dead or wounded with bombs. In the November 13th incident mentioned above, the US Marine apparently believed the insurgent was playing dead."

Fake References

I noticed some very liberal use of terminology such as "terrorist" in the article, which are not backed up by the references. References #8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 - no "terrorist/m" found in any of the articles, except for a couple of "pay per view" articles which I couldn't check.

It looks like someone wrote whole load of crap about Fallujah, and then stuck in a bunch of generic newspaper articles as references to make it look factual. Another example:

"Residents of the city claim the army fired a missile at the mosque while the army alleged that a terrorist bomb training class had gone wrong."

Reference #8: "Bush firm despite Iraq attacks" has absolutely no mention of terrorist, bomb training, or class.

To the authors: Please stop lying and start using proper references! --Guid123 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

A medical study published in September 2011 confirms high levels of uranium in Fallujah mothers. See Talk:Depleted uranium. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The study was published in Conflict and Health. It found rather high levels of a range of heavy metals. Uranium was noted at slightly higher levels than normal, three to four times the level seen elsewhere. This is not particularly surprising given that the local water supply contains higher than normal levels or uranium. What is remarkable is that no effort seems to have been made to test for organic pollutants such as may have been released from the three nearby chemical factories which were severely damaged at various times. Davy p (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mosque Explosion

"This claim was refuted by American military sources, and local Iraqi authorities later acknowledged that the explosion had come from inside the compound."

This info was already removed by someone else because it wasn’t sourced, but just for the record:

We didn't refute nothing, we just made the claim that the explosion came from within the compound. I was there when this happened and was one of the soldiers who responded to the explosion. We checked with everyone who was operating in the area and no one reported that they blew-up the mosque so we just concluded that they must have blown themselves up.

Furthermore, the Iraqis on the ground had some wild claims about what happened. Some said they saw a helicopter come blow it up, some claimed to see a missile come hover over the Mosque and then blow it up, etc.

If just checking to see if any of the other forces in the area blew-up the mosque counts as “refuting” the claim, then sure we “refuted” the claim. But, to my mind, refuting the claim entails checking the blown-up building and showing that the blast is inconsistent with a bombing. We drove by the mosque but the angry crowd at the mosque wasn’t too happy about us being there (nor were we any sort of bomb experts) so we just got the hell out of there.

- Atfyfe 03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Iraqi sources friendly with the Americans can't be relied upon to report truthfully. And, historically the USA can not be trusted for the truth. This is borne out in much of what happened in Fallujah. The most important testimony becomes what the Fallujans themselves saw. If Fallujans thought they saw something hit the building from outside than this becomes the most reliable information. - User: Nebulastardust 19:30 CST Feb 23 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.151.96 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Health effects & MEDRS

I've replaced the text in this section as some of it violated the WP:MEDRS guideline on medical sources, specifically the section on using the popular press as sources. The popular press should never be used as a source for the conclusions of an academic source. For instance, "It alleges that in 2004, Iraq had the world's highest rate of leukaemia" and "a spread of diseases indicative of genetic damage similar to but far greater than Hiroshima" are not found in the academic source. In rewriting it I've removed mention of the quantitative findings of the survey. This is for two reasons, firstly the study is primary research of not particularly high quality (a questionnaire) and secondly the authors themselves urge caution with any quantitative interpretation of their findings, but say they believe them to be qualitatively convincing. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)