November 17, 2005

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

Previous: The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, as another scene from Sigfrido Ranucci's film amply demonstrates.

Approximately 18 minutes into the film, we hear this commentary:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in open fields to illuminate enemy troops. For this tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November, as we will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that the chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way to end districts of Fallujah.

In the days that followed, U.S satellite images shows that Fallujah was burnt out and razed to the ground.

Tracers are specialized, briefly-glowing bullets used to aim machine gun fire. Traveling several thousand feet per second and emitting small amounts of light lasting just tenths of a second, they are not used as a source of illumination. Rai News24 and director Ranucci have clearly not consulted with any military subject matter experts while in the making of this film, or that preposterous statement would have never been uttered.

But it gets worse.

The film that correlates the quoted text above shows footage of what the narrator claims is, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November." But the footage shown does not show helicopters or helicopter-borne weaponry.

This is a cutaway view of the "helicopter."

The 155mm howitzer's M825A1 white phosphorus shell present in this picture is packed with 116 white phosphorus impregnated felt wedges. The projectile is approximately 2.5 feet long.

The top picture shows two M825A1 shells in a still from the U. S Army. The bottom image is a still captured from the Rai film. It shows a flare on the left, and two white phosphorus shell bursts that are nearly identical to the M825A1 shells.

As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.

There were no helicopters "raining fire" on Fallujah.

We will however, be discussing helicopters once again before we complete the developing series that is The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 17, 2005 10:04 PM | TrackBack

Notice how the media types sensationalize everything EXCEPT 9/11. It is no wonder people forget, the images of 9/11 have been purged from the media since a few days after the attacks.

Posted by: tracelan at November 17, 2005 11:15 PM

Tracelan, wonderful observation. It is totally reprehensible that the images of our citizens being slaughtered are willingly replaced with such gross fabrications as this. I know there is a population that in their heart of hearts truly want this Rai garbage to be true. CY is doing a great job of presently the facts; facts that are backed up by subject matter experts and doctrine.

Keep up the great work, CY!

Is Sigfrido Ranucci Italian for Michael Moore? Wait a minute, I lived in Italy for 3 years; it’s starting to come back… yeah, that’s it; Sigrifido Ranucci is Sicilian for Brigato Rosso.

Posted by: Old Soldier at November 18, 2005 07:59 AM

'As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.'

How many M825A1 white phosphorus shells where used in total in Fallujah?

In fact, it would be interesting to see a full list of munitions used in Fallujah.

Regs, Shaggy

Posted by: Shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 10:32 AM

Hey Shaggy, I think that's a valid question, if I see any evidence that civilians were purposely targeted with WP (granted, its not possible to rule out completely that it happened or determine what the motivation was of any "civilian" for being there). Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me how many of the Jihadists where killed by it. Remember, before the battle of Fallujah we were getting beheading videos every week. Since then, I don't recall any. I think that says a lot about who was in Fallujah.

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 18, 2005 10:44 AM

Hi Ray,

I don't think it's purely a case of purposely targeting civilians, that is just one question, another, and rather better question in the circumstances, is 'Was there indiscriminant use of certain munitions in a civilian populated area?'.

Example: An insurgent may try to ram a coalition vehicle with his suicide vehicle. In this scenario, the insurgent is targeting the military. However, if that military vehicle is surrounded by children, then, imv, the insurgent can, quite rightly imv, be called a terrorist.

Regarding the lack of beheadings: I'm not surprised. Any force, ours or theirs, once they find out that as a result of their tactic, they are losing much needed support, they will change their tactic.

We evolve, they evolve - the nature of war.

Regs, Shaggy

PS. As well as the 'white phosphorus' question, there is, imv, the more important question of Hexachloroethane (HC) smoke. Research Operation Vacuum.

Posted by: Shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 11:54 AM

OK, we know a little about Whisky Pete:

We also know the it was used in Fallujah for 'shake and bake' missions (this after we were told it was only used for obscurance and lighting).

We found this out here:

'b. White Phosphorous. 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 when 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.'

Interesting, just below that, this was mentioned:

'c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions.We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal '

I'd never heard of it, so I dug a little and found that it is nasty stuff, and known to be nasty stuff (Operation Vacuum):

Check out this site, and the video:


Did anyone see coalition forces use (never mind the civilians in Fallujah being issued with) gas masks when using the above?

Me neither.

Regs, Shaggy

Posted by: Shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 12:24 PM

That hexachloroethane zinc is nasty stuff isn't it? I guess that's why they feed it to cattle and sheep to help them bulk up.

Yep, there's out dirty secret: we were just plumpin' up the insurgents to eat them. ;-)

Posted by: hansel at November 18, 2005 12:37 PM

Hi hansel,

'That hexachloroethane zinc is nasty stuff isn't it? I guess that's why they feed it to cattle and sheep to help them bulk up.'

From your link: 'Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'

As with all chemicals, a lot depends in where it is used, and how.

Regs, Shaggy

Posted by: Shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 12:50 PM

Hold up a second, Shaggy.

Are you saying that hexachloroethane zinc, a compound used in making smoke, is being used against insurgents as a chemical weapon because it is "Reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer?

If this is what you are saying--and if you are doing so in jest, I apologize for missing the sarcasm--don't you think that this might be the worst "chemical weapon" in human history?

It would be faster-acting to simply drop cartons of cigarettes...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 18, 2005 01:09 PM

Hi Confederate Yankee,

'Are you saying that hexachloroethane zinc, a compound used in making smoke, is being used against insurgents as a chemical weapon because it is "Reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer?'

Nope. What I am highlighting is that the civilian population in Iraq is most probabily taking more of a hammering than we know about.

Bush said 'Bring it on', ie, 'not in his back yard but someone elses'. When war is fought in a back yard, those who live there get the shitty end of the stick. Bush tells us he is liberating the Iraqi's; did he tell them the cost; does he tell them the cost?

Bad things happen in war. I believe those that CHOOSE to fight in them should bear the cost, NOT the civilians caught in the middle.

Regs, Shaggy

Posted by: Shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 01:30 PM

Shaggy, how many weeks advanced warning is sufficient to alert the civilians that their whole world is going to turn deadly? Don’t you think that after a week long notification process that Fallujah was going to become a battlefield would motivate most civilians to depart the scene? The US military put out advanced notice to mitigate the probability of collateral civilian deaths. Tactically, it made absolutely no sense to warn the terrorists that we were coming. Since the warning went out, don’t you think is a reasonable assumption that the majority of civilians had left?

War is not a gentleman’s sport. It is a dirty business and demands weapons capable of many tactical necessities. One such necessity is to kill the enemy; another is to destroy his cover, another to destroy his equipment, etc. Once engaged, a commander’s objective is to win the battle with as little loss of his/her own soldiers as possible. That means engaging weapons that are effective for the task at hand. Most often, the commander’s will direct the battle within the confines of training and doctrine. It is absolutely unrealistic to expect a commander engaged in a battle to second guess if there may be collateral damage or deaths to civilians, particularly when they had a week notice of the coming operation.

Having served in the U.S. Army for 31 years, I have the utmost confidence in the morals and ethics of our military commanders. That doesn’t mean I think they are humanly infallible. When they screw up, it comes to light and the necessary corrections are taken; e.g. Abu Grahb, Me Lai, and other isolated incidents.

Under treaties and to some extent unilaterally, we are diminishing our stockpile of WMDs. I hope we never zero our stockpile, because our having WMD at our access is one of the greatest deterrents we possess. Any time we bloodlessly deter an attack, they have served a useful purpose.

Please give our military the benefit of the doubt. They are the ones coming under fire to protect our way of life. If you sleep comfortable at night, thank them, don’t quickly criticize without all the facts and an understanding of what tactical purpose the weapon in question serves.

Posted by: Old Soldier at November 18, 2005 10:25 PM

It is interesting how easy it is to justify our own use of chemical weapons when the supposed reason for the war was that it was CRIMINAL for anyone to have and use such weapons. We lost several thousand on Sept. 11th -- fact of the matter is we have killed over 30 thousand civilians in Iraq since that time. There is NO moral justification of this - and for the use of weapons that we do not believe anyone else in that world should have or use.

What were civilians doing there -- well they LIVE there just like you like where you live - - they work there -- just like you work where you work -- they make their lives their -- raise their families there -- their children go to school there ---

we have used NAPALM -- we have used irradiated weapons - - we have left a trail of unexploded munitions for children to find - - -

There is NO moral justification for this carnage and we have done all of this against the dictates of International Law.

Posted by: Sparrow at November 19, 2005 12:11 PM

Sparrow... have you actually be able to comprehend any of the things being proven here, or are you so wrapped up in your ideology that facts simply don't matter?

Neither napalm nor any similar substance was ever used in Fallujah. Period. White phosphorus, which is not a chemical weapon by any definition nor is it banned for use under any treaty for us against military targets, was used for obscurant, illumination, and "shake and bake" missions in Fallujah. Are all legal under the Geneva Conventions and all other treaties to which the United States is a signee. Period.

But let us use your make-believe for a moment in an intellectual excercise, shall we?

Suppose that white phosphorus shells are "chemical weapons" as you and the other ignoratti have managed to convince yourselves despite all the proven scientific factual information to the contrary. If white phosphorus and similar compounds are chemical weapons as you state, then George Bush did not start an illegal war.

United Nations Weapons Inspectors have know for years about thousands of tons of these kinds of weapons, and we have vast quantities secured and in our possesion.

So which is it? Did the United States use chemical weapons in Fallujah, or did Bush start an unjust war? You can't have both.

These are mutually exclusive lies, so choose wisely.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 19, 2005 03:00 PM

Sparrow, I have a hard time understanding something, and I wonder if you might enlighten me? How is it that liberal minded folks will cling to the words of someone that has no idea about what they write/speak, and yet the same folks will summarily reject the testimony of subject matter experts? I mean, Ray Robison has testified to the facts about WP, I've tesified to the facts of WP, CY has done exhaustive research and provided quotes from Army Field Manuals and articles written for military audiences and yet you still summarily reject what we say. Is that because you are closed minded or don't you want to be bothered by as trivial as facts? I'm curious, so I would appreciate a response.

Posted by: Old Soldier at November 20, 2005 05:48 PM

Sparrow, I don't know what law school you went to, maybe Evergreen State College, but I think this war was legal because it was supported in the Gulf War cease fire agreement, multiple U.N. resolutions, and a joint resolution for the use of force by congress. I think it would be impossible to find another war that had the legality so sound and publicly available. Of course, that would require research, and what good blameocrat has time for that....

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 21, 2005 04:03 PM