It's hard to believe this happened a year ago (that's a long but must-see video, via). There were, and likely are, not too many witnesses to this event, at least not on the civilian side. But maybe some stories yet will be forthcoming, in addition to those documented by the video (and not just the endless stream of American soldier book-deal pap). Accounts of this particular atrocity must continue to demand the attention they rightly deserve. Not to put too fine a spin on it: in Fallujah we used white phosphorous like napalm:
The use of the
incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty.
The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US
signed in 1997.
One can only hope the returning soldiers will be so bold; to speak, and above all to complicate the picture (that is, to speak for the sake of a truth, as parrhesiastes, and not just as Johny-come-lately book promoters. Or what-passes-for-a-book promoters. Most of that stuff truly belongs on a blog). (In good spirit, please see, relatedly, Chris Allbritton.) The future of the world may just well depend on something like this will to truth (as the insidiously 9/11-sanctioned Bushspeak continues its quasi-fascist descent into international politics, specifically as the language of disease). Meanwhile, of course by now you're aware that we have a (no longer "secret") Gulag (paltry more here).
Update: In the meantime, here's The Independent. Also, the answer to 'lenin's question is, obviously, "no." In bureaucratic-legal speak, it seems we used a "conventional" (!) weapon deadly illuminating firebomb device somewhat unconventionally as a weapon, in that never-failing attempt to destroy the city in order to save it.
Update II: For more on the riots in France, please see Lenin's Tomb, Hoipolloi Cassidy and Le Colonel Chabert.
Recent Comments