Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

How do we describe

How do we describe attempts to call military operations against guerrillas "an attack on the city"? Is this enemy propaganda or objective fact? What's being attacked? The city as a whole, or just the militants? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 19:24, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

Well of course by doctrine, efforts are directed against the enemy force. (Once his means to resist are destroyed all geographical objectives fall into place.) If my doodling is misleading, please feels free to change it. Still, remember this is a work-in-progress. PaulinSaudi 20:25, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

Use of AK's by U.S. troops

In a lot of the photos, from both this operation, and others, U.S. troops are wielding AK47 Rifles, like here for example. Presumably this is so insurgents can locate the troops by sound of their rifles (being a distinct sound from an M16.).

Does anyone know whether the U.S. bought these weapons? Or were confiscated? Just curious. Terrapin 20:48, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

Those are Iraqi troops, denoted by their lack of helmet covers. At one point a lot of the support troops who were suddenly forced to carry a rifle ('But I'm a cook!') took up AKMs as there were lots of the around and some TOEs do not have a rifle for each soldier. I guess a few guys might still have the AK, but why would be a whole 'nother question.

We didn't buy them, we captured them. It is bedtime here, g'night. PaulinSaudi 21:03, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

but some are clearly U.S. troops and NOT support troops. Like here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrapin (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

It's not all that unusual to see western troops carrying AK-47s or derivatives at times. Usually it's either special operations personnel or armoured unit personnel using them, partly out of personal preference but also because in an intense firefight it's easier to find ammunition for it, discarded by the other side. As far as I know it has nothing to do with the difference in sound of the rifles at all. Advantages with the AK-47 are the aforementioned ammunition availability, and greater first-shot lethality as opposed to the 5.56mm-chambered M16, but a big disadvantage is that the AK-47 is far less accurate. As I said, it's personal preference, usually amongst special operations troops, and not any US Army policy. Also, as Paul said, they were confiscated and not purchased. It's also possible they came from former Iraqi Army stockpiles. See here Impi 21:36, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I apologise for not looking at these photos properly the first time around. Now that I have, I can say for certain that those are not US troops. They are all Iraqi troops, from the Iraqi 36th Commando Battalion, who had the lead role in the capture of the hospital in Fallujah. Impi 11:25, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

I have a question: do the troops have surrounded the city or are the only attacking from the west and the north? Thanks in advance, Bontenbal 15:20, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

The city is surrounded on all sides. Apparently a bit of disinformation was done prior to the battle to convince the insurgents that the attack would come from the east, and instead it has come from the north and west, basically working towards a sweep from north-west to south-east and probably back west again to flush any remaining insurgents out towards the Euphrates. Impi 15:35, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

to the above: of course you can use the sound of an AK to irritate your enemy or fake him. And the lethality of an AK is not much worse than that of an M16. Its true that the ammunition used is bigger, yet AK bullets are mostly fullmetalljackets whereas the 5.56mmNato round is a fragmentationbullet and therefore has a much higher stopping power than a completely penetrating round of an ak. Furthermore you have to distinguish different models of AKs and their used ammunitiontypes since they tend to vary from country to country. JayKubisch 06:06, 1 March 2006 (CET)

During my time in Fallujah we made good use of a number of captured Iraqi weapons. - Atfyfe 08:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In my basic training NCOs told us that the AKs have higher rifling, making even wounds on external bodyparts potentially lethal because of the addditional shock by the angular momentum. The explanation was that this shock can transfer and harm blood vessels in other parts of the body, possibly the brain. In ballistics this theory is disputed, so possibly it is an urban myth. Wandalstouring 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Allied casualties

It indicates in this article that there were"500" casualties. My information indicates a lot less than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanada (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I got that from the USMC AAR, but would point out that casualties are killed (few) + wounded (many) + missing (very few). So the number killed would about 10% I+(I guess) of the total, call it about fifty. Paul, in Saudi 04:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of Chemical Weapons

Come one! White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon? Says who? Gunpowder kills with chemical energy, is it a chemical weapon? This silly paragraph says both that WP causes massive fires and that it kills while leaving clothing intact. Which is it?

We are saying it kills everyone within 150M, but when one went off near US troops, it resulted in minor burns. Which is it?

We say it is illegal, but then we put it in quotes. Why is that? Is the use of WP illegal or not? Cite?

I will delete this paragraph tomorrow (Friday the 16th) unless there is some sort of general outcry or an improvement in the content.

Paul, in Saudi 09:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reread the paragraph (I did not write it, btw) and checked it against sources. It is consistant.

The paragraph does not say that WP is illegal, and it is not illegal "White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty". It says that the US government denied it's use. However they must have got their wires crossed because the US Army doens't deny it. The effects are treatable, and I suppose the soldiers who survived accidental exposure was lucky. This claim is anyway in the context of RAI documentary. WP reacts with water, wet things like skin burn but not dry things like clothing. WP is a chemical weapon, it's function is not to explode but to burn and poison. There is no reason to remove the paragraph. Seabhcán 10:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"WP is a chemical weapon" - not, It's a chemical munition first and foremost. Its function is chiefly to burn and create huge amounts of thick smoke. The problem - and the source of the controversy - is that you can use it as a chemical weapon: if it is ignited in close quarters such as a house, the chemical effects outweigh the physical effects; people get poisoned and eaten by acid, then burned. Under the open skies, and most so in open terrain where the use of WP is completely uncontroversial in most all circumstances, it makes a nice smokescreen one merely shouldn't (and usually needn't) come in contact with. A "chemical weapon" is one where the chemical effects are the prime reason for weaponizing the compound in question. This is not the case with WP; it is substandard as an incinerating agent except in special circumstances. Dysmorodrepanis 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon user who wrote the original article... I believe the article as well as the article on WP has been edited and deleted to a point where it sais absolutely NOTHING!!! The point of the RAI documentary, if you saw it, was that WP was used against CIVILIANS! and if so it IS illegal. Read the treaty and you see what it says. So please put back the original form of the article as otherwise it is just plain cencorship. The current article, in its form, is a discrace as it has been tampered with beyond recognition, and yes even to the point of propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.227.165 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it more of a crime than blowing civilians up using explosives? The US hasn't signed the part of the treaty that makes WP illegal as a weapon - so it's use as a weapon is just as legal as the ordinary bombs that they drop every day - and use of any weapons against civilians is illegal. (I think it is shocking and immoral, but wikipedia isn't the place to argue this.) Seabhcán 15:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC) I re-added some detail on the US goverment denial of use, and removed a bogus statement that 'most' of the world's militaries use WP. Seabhcán 15:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not healthy to have contact with White phosphorus (weapon) (see also: handling phosphorus). It burns easily and in contact with water it becomes phosphoric acid. Many thermobaric weapons have the same effect that the incredients are hazardous chemicals and as such do also harm the health of enemy soldiers in case they do not ignite.

In contrast the old fashioned black powder was used to cure diarrhea and desinfect wounds. The modern gunpowder cordite (smokeless powder) can be used to enhance erections for example because it sets NO2 free which serves as a hormon for blood vessel controll within the human body. Although you shouldn't eat too much of both. Wandalstouring 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-added some detail on the US goverment denial of use, and removed a bogus statement that 'most' of the world's militaries use WP.

That is possibly right, at least for military installations outside of civilian areas such as warships. Phosphoric acid drops get very close to the perfect size for scattering light to screen against vision (see Mie theory). I argue to mention this with the concerning protocolls and who signed them in case we maintain a reference to its international use. Wandalstouring 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Chemical Weapons Convention bans its use, regardless of whether it is only used on enemy combatants or not.

This statement is simply untrue and ought to be removed. Incendiaries *may* be used on enemy combatants; and WP (as an incendiary) is not covered by the CWT. (And most armed forces do use it, and have since at least WWII) Solicitr (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of 11 November, 2005

Allow me to start a unified effort to clean up this poor page. I encourage others to help and all to play nice. For some reason this battle has recently become a center of controversy. That itself is an indicator that we need to act carefully, calmly and fairly. Paul, in Saudi 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 1 I replaced the warning on the top of the page. No biggie, I think. Paul, in Saudi 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 2 Under background, I deleted the word mercenaries as inflammatory. (I would add here the word has no real definition. It means something like "Person I do not like who is involved in a war." Paul, in Saudi 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 3 In background, I replaced US Coalition forces with the more neutral foreign. OK? Paul, in Saudi 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 4 Began to add subheads. It will help our editing. If need be, we can remove them later. Paul, in Saudi 04:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 5 Added date to first line. Who, what, when, where why Paul, in Saudi 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 6 trying to wrestle this into chrono order, some of these milestones will come out in a few minutes. Paul, in Saudi 04:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 7 The timeline is really, really useful! Now we can see what went on here! Paul, in Saudi 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 8 The timeline seems to have consumed the Background section. A real improvement. I think. Paul, in Saudi 05:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 9 Background section is gone. It was all moved elsewhere, except for the speculation that PF was delay by the American elections. Paul, in Saudi 05:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 10 New section; Conduct of the Battle.Paul, in Saudi 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 11 Now we get to controversial stuff. I am cutting the un-cited claim as to why the hospital was captured. Paul, in Saudi 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 12 I cut up the battle into smaller paragraphs. Problem It seems we are not sure what happened on the 7, 8, and 9th of November. Paul, in Saudi 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 13 Casualty Figures are hard to state. Paul, in Saudi 05:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 14 Now to the meat of the problem. Let me do the easy part of this first. I deleted the idea the photographic evidence was new. I saw it on BBC at the time. I deleted the claim that the Americans say they did not use WP. They said they did not use napalm. I cut some stuff out of the sentence to make it simpler, but I hope I did not change meaning. Paul, in Saudi 05:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 15 the Aftermath section is starting to look good! It is a shame facts are so hard come by, I do not like weasel words. Paul, in Saudi 06:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 16 Now I am causing trouble. I added the bit that the use of WP is a fairly standard procedure. I have used it myself. Everyone does. Everyone has. Nothing new here. Paul, in Saudi 06:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 17 I deleted all of this:

Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time.

WP kills by burning, not by toxic action. It is not a chemical weapon. I have spent lots of time in WP smoke. It has not killed me. Yet. Paul, in Saudi 06:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• 18 Last thing. I deleted the Quotes section it seemed to be a place to put stupid words said by smart people. It read;

==Quotes==

• From their forward operating bases throughout the zone, Iraqi and Multi-National forces, led by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, punched west across the Euphrates River in search of anti-Iraqi forces and those who aid them. While rounding up 30 suspects during the initial sweep, the Iraqis and their American allies seized a suspected insurgent training camp and took control of the Jurf Kas Sukr Bridge. The bridge, spanning the Euphrates southwest of Baghdad, is believed to be a favored corridor for insurgents moving into and out of key cities, including the capital hub and the current AIF sanctuary of Fallujah. [1]

• General George Casey described most of the people remaining in the city as an amorphous group of terrorists and insurgents and said that U.S. troops had secured a hospital used as a staging area by Sunni insurgents and two bridges across the Euphrates River [2].

• Donald Rumsfeld said, There aren't going be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces. [3]

• Noam Chomsky has said: "what was dramatic about Fallujah was that it was not kept secret. So you could see on the front page of the New York Times, a big picture of the first major step in the offensive, namely the capture of the Fallujah general hospital. And there's a picture of people lying on the ground, soldier guarding them, and then there's a story that tells that patients and doctors were taken from - patients were taken from their beds, patients and doctors were forced to lie on the floor and manacled, under guard, and the picture described it. The president of the United States is subject to death penalty under US law for that crime alone." [4]

Paul, in Saudi 06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

paulin i think the phrase "the use of WP is a fairly standard procedure" is too ambiguos. All militaries use WP but most countries of these militaries have signed the 1980 protocol III of the Geneva treaty on certain weapons, including UK for example, to name one that partecipated in the operation. "the use of WP is a fairly standard procedure" is not disputed, but which kind of use do you do with it IS the dispute.

"I deleted the Quotes section it seemed to be a place to put stupid words said by smart people" what's so stupid about Chomsky quote? Anyway, stupid or not, this is what relevant people said about Fallujah (eg. Rumsfield) so i'd keep the section.

And can anyone find detailed and scientific information about the effects of WP. The dispute if WP can burn the body but spare the clothes or not needs to be settled once for all with scientific datas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.181.57 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I question if a print encyclopedia often bother with quotes. Why should we? They are simply people's opinions, and if anything we need to turn down the volume on opinions in this article. Paul, in Saudi 12:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How the heck COULD anything ignite a human, burn them, melt the flesh from their bones, and NOT ignite their clothing? How could it be done? Paul, in Saudi 12:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know this, what are we to make of your claim to have used WP yourself? My understanding of the chemistry of WP is that it behaves more like an acid than 'fire'. It 'burns' at about 30C and doesn't produce much heat. It would be better to say it disolves human flesh while leaving the clothes. Seabhcán 13:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sir, I make no claim that I have used WP myself. I simply state the fact. I have fired WP from the old 4.2 mortar, I have called in WP from both 105mm and 155mm guns. I have advanced through both HC and WP smoke. I have been exposed to both. Neither my skin nor my clothing has been damaged by those exposures. If you wish to make a case that WP has effects that are somehow more morally objectionable than those of HE shells, please make it. (I would however propose that it might be more appropriate in a page on WP). Paul, in Saudi 14:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to sound insulting. I typed the question too quickly and didn't read over it. It was meant to be a genuine inquiry - I don't have experience military area. Seabhcán 15:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My fault too. I am being bitchy. Group hug? Please not my note next under about the discussion on the SDMB. I suppose we will get some high-quality replies there. A great message board. We (as two reasonable people) are much-needed on this page. Passions are very high. See you tomorrow. Paul, in Saudi 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In late-breaking news, I note the discussion on the effects of WP at Straight Dope Message Board, my favorite place on the net. Perhaps the Smart People there will have an authoritative solution. It is remarkable how much currency this story has. Paul, in Saudi 15:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some lab experience. That Paul, in Saudi walked through a mist of WP after ignition doesn't mean its harmless. Phosphoric acid has the typical characteristics of acid when in contact with humans. In contrast to leaches it does not dissolve the human body in a laminar fashion (skin gets lubricious), but rather creates (burns) holes down into the body. The dangerous part is its strong hygroscopic effect which also sets a great amount of energy free in the form of heat. It can lead to injuries classified as burns when the water becomes steam (at least locally). After the acid is mostly saturated it becomes the typical white fog and than it mostly etches only. In case the concentration of phosphoric acid in the air isn't too high you won't notice much when passing through after the dangerous hygroscopic effect has taken place. The problem is that a human standing close to a WP while igniting is a big piece of water. The hygroscopic effect on it can result in fatal wounds. These are classified as burns, but they are more like the wounds you have after touching a hot plate than an open fire. See also White phosphorus (weapon). Wandalstouring 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New US occupation of Fallujah article required?

At the moment the Fallujah article contains a detailed overview of all the US-Iraqi battles that have taken place in the city. If we are to move that material out, we need a place to put it. So, we could make a new US occupation of Fallujah article (or some other wording, if you prefer) or merge this artile with Operation Vigilant Resolve,Operation Plymouth Rock and others. Seabhcán 11:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would propose to move all the military stuff from the Fallujah article (reducing it to a travelogue). I suppose we here are agreed, but how can we sell that to the people over at the Fallujah page? That page is all messed up. Paul, in Saudi 12:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

+sr

I'm creating the serbian language version of the story so the people there can know what sort of genocide the americans were doing there.-TheFEARgod 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Something about your post tells me that the serbian version will not be NPOV. You might also like to expand this article while your at it. Seabhcán 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this post is NPOV. The article will be facts. I wonder what tf does kosovo have to do with this operation. --TheFEARgod 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't blame the current American government for the crimes of Clinton against the Serbs. Most Americans realize Serbians only wanted to protect their country from terrorists an rebels, which is exactly what the US and Iraqis were doing in Fallujah. 153.104.16.114 17:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully understand. The only difference is that the Serbs were fighting them in their own country and the current US regime in another.TheFEARgod 19:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this the "them" the US are fighting? Were these the "rebels" the Serb government fought in Kosovo? Seabhcán 00:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's always fascinating to have an international team. Come on we can't avoid POV issues and no encyclopedia ever has, but we can try to keep them sourced and discuss the subject. So if the Serbian presentation has some tendency to show it from an angle the English version doesn't share that's OK as long as they remember fairness and facts. The same for this work here. There are far too few quotes of Arabian sources. Wandalstouring 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said that quote?

At one point of another we seem to have lost the identity of the speaker of the quote in the WP section. It would be a shame to loose it, but I cannot vouch for it. Little help, Anyone? Paul, in Saudi 16:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't see why the quote should be pulled even though I'm not exactly sure who said it. It was one of Captain James T. Cob, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour or Sergeant First Class William H. Hight. The quote can be found on page 26 of the March-April edition of Field Artillery, available at http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2005.asp#mar-apr. I'm going to go ahead and cite it in the article. Brian Geppert 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RAI Documentary and Mk 77 firebombs

I'm hoping someone can help me out on this one. In that RAI documentary, was there ever a specific claim that Mk 77 firebombs were used on Fallujah? As you may know, the US has said that we used them during the initial invasion. However, the US has never claimed to have used them in Fallujah. As far as I remember, the documentary talks about its use in 2003 and the confusion with the UK government, but never makes a specific claim, nor shows any specific evidence that such weapons were used in November 2004. White phosphorus, yes, there was substancial evidence, but nothing related to Mk 77s, or am I wrong?--BohicaTwentyTwo 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on that one. Mk 77s were not used in Fallujah in 2004 and I believe that using that documentary for evidence of anything is BS to begin with but I'll digress on that point. I do know for a fact we used Mk-77s back in 2003 in a few places. Lastly, napalm is not an effective weapon in an urban environment. Most of the drops during this campaign were with in the 'Danger Close' range (600m) so it is extremely unlikely that Napalm was used due to the pattern of the weapon's effects. As with every other link involving the Iraq war the anti-US crowd loves to jump in. No better example exists than the External Links page on every Iraq link.--Looper5920 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"I do know for a fact we used Mk-77s back in 2003 in a few places." To clear access to Rumaila oilfield on March 20th (IIRC); fairly well documented as these things go. It was used on bunkers(?) along the road; while not universally accepted as a "clean" weapon, I find nothing particularly wrong with this particular incident. Mk77 use was apparently very limited in 2003 compared to use of such munitions in 1991. Dysmorodrepanis 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I threw this together. Wanted to get opinions before throwing it on the main page. Could also use some help with some of the numbers I could not find for WIA

Operation Phantom Fury
Part of the Post-invasion Iraq
File:USMC 455.jpg U.S. Marines from the 1st Marine Division use a SMAW to assault an enemy position.
Date 07 November–13 November, 2004 Location Fallujah, Iraq Result United States victory
Belligerents
United States Military & Iraqi Security Forces	Iraqi insurgents
Commanders and leaders
MajGen Richard F. Natonski	N/A
Strength
17,000+	2,000 - 3000
Casualties and losses
71 KIA & unk WIA	1200+ dead, unk # of wounded

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

go ahead ! --TheFEARgod 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

At present, it has Zarqawi as insurgent commander... I seriously doubt that. While the Coalition was fairly eager to spread such claims (giving moral justification to an operation that was bound to cause significant harm to civilians), this cannot be considered reliable. But what weighs most strongly is that what is known about the man Zarqawi does not indicate that he had the background or intelligence required for such a position; he was too much of a hoodlum and terrorist for that.

It certainly seems that groups loyal to Zarqawi effectively ran the city at the offensive's start as regards regulation of civilian life; this has been verified by multiple, apparently independent, sources. But there does not seem to have been a coordinated battle plan on the OPFOR side, with individual groups of varying loyalties (ex-Ba'athist, ex-military, Zarqawians etc) fighting as they saw fit. As opposed to Operation Vigilant Resolve, where the defense of al-Fallujah was a fairly coordinated activity run by ex-military types and little progress was made by Coalition forces after they gained a foothold in the industrial area, the news reports of Phantom Fury read different, with only a token resistance offered by OPFOR where the Coalition got its nose bloodied half a year before, and the heaviest fighting not starting until Coalition/ISF troops had advanced significantly into the city.

Add to that reports which fairly convincingly claim that Zarqawi had left the city before the assault started.

I have changed the infobox accordingly, but the matter needs further discussion. Dysmorodrepanis 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: As regards Tawhid wal Jihad - it is apparent that these guys gave the fiercest resistance, but it is unlikely that this was directed or coordinated by al-Zarqawi, as outlined above. It should be possible to find out which one of his "military advisors" was most probably the guy in charge (odds are he got killed, but that's just conjecture). Dysmorodrepanis 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy-in-charge in lieu of Zarqawi was apparently Omar Hussein Hadid who ran the local chapter of TwJ; some sources go as far as to describe him (and not Zarqawi) as the man who ran Fallujah from ~Jul/Aug 2004 on. IF this [5] is legit, there seems ample reason to believe that Hadid AKA "Abu Khattab al-Falluji" ("Father of sermons/head preacherman from Fallujah") was indeed the closest thing OPFOR had to an overall commander. Dysmorodrepanis 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See for example here for an eulogy of Hadid which judging from style alone seems legit. Dysmorodrepanis 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the casualties and wounded numbers, you're way too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.10.135 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the numbers here are from an old version of the page. Or do you mean the current numbers? Which ones? In my experience, the only reliable numbers are Coalition casualty reports of their own troops, namely the numbers that are eventually settled upon. Though there has been much talk over the years about the US hiding casualties, and technically this being possible to some extent, such allegations have never been proven. As for the OPFOR, I think the old "we don't do [precise] body counts" still stands. At least in major operations, I have yet to see a dedicated OPFOR body count that is not in some way inflated or tweaked. Even Iraqi authorities often contradict insurgent casualties as related by US authorities as way inflated and civilian casualties as way too low, indicating a pattern of habit. The difficulty of separating the corpses of OPFOR fighters from residents leaves considerable leeway, so this might not even be really intentional and fully conscious. Apparently, there was an overestimate (c.3-5fold) of OPFOR forces in Fallujah when the operationg got underway. If Zarquawi could bribe his way out of there, others could too. The progress of the operation as compared with Vigilant Resolve indicates that here, only the hadr-core guys were left, and for these, an estimate of 3000-4000 was considered realistic in the immediate aftermath IIRC; though. Dysmorodrepanis 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Are there any numbers of killed civillians aka *colleteral damage*? The only ones i saw were estimated before and after siege inhabitants but no direct numbers. And btw why did the so called *coalition* siege this city at all (apart from that one *terrorist* that wasnt there of course)? its not that there were any crusaders or whatsoever that would need a siege to be defeated! if i want someone to die i ask a profesionell and not an army... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.249.209 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question...No. As to the second part the answer is that is how you fight in the urban environment. Cut them off and then systematically sweep through.--Looper5920 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was a participant in the battle in question and I will tell you that Fallujah was more or less a ghost town when we hit it. The only civilians left were either people too weak to leave or people whom the insurgents held as human sheilds. The only civilian casualties I witnessed was when a large group of people; men, women and one or two children approached our platoon on the 3rd day. Fearing a suicide bomber in the group, we instructed them to halt in Arabic. When they failed to halt we fired warning shots. One of the rounds richocheted off a cider-block wall and hit one the men in the calf. The thing that disturbs me the most was a teenage girl that one of the men was carrying resembled a concentration camp survivor, you could clearly see that she was emaciated even under her abaya and heavy coat. Everyone else appeared well fed and healthy but she looked like she had been starved. Anyway we held the crowed in place until they could be escorted out by elements of the Iraqi Army. There was no intentional targeting of civilians that I could tell. Extraordinary measures were taken to ensure the safty of non-comabtatants up to the point of putting ourselves in the line of fire. No shots were fired unless someone could be identified as an enemy combatant. We had to take extra care since we had Iraqi soldiers fighting with us and they don't always stay in uniform. I myself nearly opened fire on Iraqi soldiers on several occasions because they wern't in uniform and looked for an instant like insurgents as they use the same weapons, AK-47s, RPKs and RPGs. We all took extra care not kill anyone who wasn't an enemy combatant, hence the lack of fratricide in this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.61.130 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RAI WP controversy

"..depicting what it alleges..". It has been confirmed that they did indeed use WP - this initial statement makes it sound like a rather hare-brained allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.50.167 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What it is saying is that there is no proof that those pictured died as a result of WP. Yes they used WP, and yes those people are dead but that does not mean that those pictured died from the use of WP. Unless forensic analysts went in and looked at the bodies then it is just speculation.--Looper5920 23:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the body isn't charred and shows an unnatural high degree of dehydration combined with acid burns the body has been next to an igniting WP device. A forensic team can find out whether or not the person died from WP or other causes. However this doesn't indicate that the person was killed on purpose with WP. So far the possibility to make claims. Wandalstouring 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dump a steak in quicklime, leave it there for 15 minutes, scrape off the muck, douse it in a cup of gasoline and light it; somewhat similar effect. Apart from that, WP effects on animal tissue are hard to recreate. Lack of deep-reaching carbonization is a telltale sign to distinguish it from the effects of e.g. a home fire caused by a ricochet hitting a propane bottle and setting alight furniture; such fires usually char a body massively; it is basically a question of deep charring vs dehydration which in a normal fire accompanies but in a WP fire precedes charring as a rule of thumb. At least some of the published images show injuries that are extremely hard to explain by anything other than contact with significant amounts of WP. For example flesh cracking up and leaving relatively dry wounds without any large-area third-degree burns. In these cases, death was most likely due to internal injuries from inhaling WP smoke. Dysmorodrepanis 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • the soldiers side of the story****

I was with 2-7 Cav for "Phantom Fury" My first point is to identify the three CAV troopers in the photo that accompanies the "Aftermath" section. From left to right are SGT Ron Heinz, SPC Micheal Haggerty and SPC Brandon Walling. Second the enemy casualtie figures seem kinda low to me. I belive that the enemy bodycount may have been as high as 3,000. Third, the insurgents in Fallujah put up on hell of a fight, considering the force brought to bear against them, they were well organized, highly motivated and totally fearless, perferring in most cases to be killed rather than captured. As a result we called LOTS of indirect fires and airstrikes. You'll find in any US artillery manual that when the observer ID's a target there is a ammo mix that gets fired. For enemy armor they shoot HE(high explosive) or copperhead rounds. For troops in the open, they shoot HE, for troops under cover they shoot a mix of HE and WP. In Fallujah we had just that, troops in fortified buildings. So, would people feel better if more of our guys got killed? Would they feel better if we pushed the enemy out of windows? My point is that you send soldiers into situations like Fallujah, and then you criticize the way we do the job. If you had been on the ground in Fallujah, you would have thanked the god of your choice that we had WP rounds. Next time you go fight and show us dumb grunts how it's done. All's fair in love and war, ya'll. The insurgents certainly believe that. They play dead, then shoot you as you pass. They pretend to be wounded or they pretend to surrender. They shoot at you till they run out of ammo, drop their weapon and walk out the back door like nothing happened, fall back on pre-positioned weapons and ammo, then start shooting at you again. This is just the tactics they have to employ to survive on the battlefield. My last point is that the insurgents harrass, intimidate, kidnap, murder and rape Iraqis. When we went on patrol, we took candy for the kids and worked to provide some kind of security for Iraqi civilians in a country gone mad. Sounds, to me like some of you need to go out to Iraq and get a first hand look as whats going on. You can't judge a soldier till you hump a few klicks in his boots. Peace love and chicken grease, yall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.190.145 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sounds, to me like some of you need to go out to Iraq and get a first hand look as whats going on." Ishaqi massacre & Haditha killings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.221.169 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's me from 2-7 Cav again. These incidents are just examples of how the insurgents in Iraq continue to use the civilian population as "cover and concealment". Its a damn shame that kids got caught in the crossfire in these incidents, but you need to understand the bad guys chose the time and place of combat in 90% of the time in Iraq. These guys just don't walk around with T-shirts that say "insurgent" in big letters for all to see. When insurgents initiate an ambush in an area that they know has non-combatants nearby, they make the choice to put these people in harms way, not us. It is unreasonable to expect soldiers and marines under fire in the enemy's kill zone to be able to sort out un-uniformed combatants with non-combatants. When fighting ones way out of an ambush, you shoot anything in front of you that moves, because it might kill you.

PS: Why do you hate us soldiers anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.190.145 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the flip side, I acknowledege that it is possible that the death of a fellow marine might have sent a few grunts over the edge and they went postal on some Iraqis. But, with the conditions being what they are in Iraq and the refusal of Iraqis to let investagators examine the bodies of the alleged victims, I believe with a high degree of certainty that their version of events is not true. I'm not basing this opinion on something I heard from CNN or read on some America hater web site, but on personal combat experience. If it is proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused did in fact come back hours later and then kill these people then they should get hammered, for not only killing incocent people, but for dishonoring and discrediting our nation and it's armed forces.

I don't hate you, was a conscripted one myself. Look, we have to write based on verifiable sources and we have to avoid all POV no matter how much we despise something. For example naturally I would use a fog screen of WP to avoid being shot, but the guy standing next to this device while it ignites would be more happy if shot (acid burns really hurt very bad, see also the NATO manuals on the subject). Could you possibly sign your comments using 4 times "~" Tank you. Wandalstouring 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2-7 again, I don't care if the guy next to it is "happy" or not, he's the enemy and only deserves mercy if he surrenders. Using a mix of High Explosive and White Phosphorus rounds is a great way to blast insurgents out of fortified houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.162.231 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your statement about using high explosives and WP to blast someone out of a fortified position makes sense(I had the same idea for a possible use after analyzing how WP works), but I'm not sure whether your superiors would like to read this on wikipedia. It is close to the border of/over the border to chemical warfare. I perfectly understand your point of view and I'm sure this combination rocks, but officially WP is used for defence. The enemy can't see and shoot you, but he is not directly affected by the grenade going off. Perhaps we should skip this discussion to my talk page or to the WP article.

Do you know the arguments for the use of chemical weapons in WWI(there was a real rush to be the first one using them) and why not in WWII? Well, wikipedia is no place to judge whether or not the use of WP is a good thing. We only mention it + we can add the fact that there is an international protocol signed by many nations(partaking in the Iraq conflict), but not the US, interdicting its use in areas with civilian population. This is a neutral point of view because whether or not there were real civilians(pseudo-civilians make it even more difficult) affected are circumstances we can't verify.Wandalstouring 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

tell it how it is 2-7, 3/1 usmc here, im tired of hearing or reading the opinions of people who have not seen combat first hand critisize the way we do our job. we do what we do to keep ourselves alive over there. i was there too, man and that was literally hell on earth. im glad you set some things straight for those non military types. anyway, i just want to put in my two cents on my experience while in fallujah. to answer the AK47 question, we picked up AKs from the enemy we killed. we didnt use the ones that were coniscated and to my knowledge my unit did not purchase any either. the reason we used them WAS for the stopping power because our M16 5.56mm round were not taking down the enemy fast enough. Im not sure if you saw this in your sector 2/7, but the insurgency used methanmphetamine and adrenaline to keep themselves up waiting for us to enter the city on foot, and to not feel when they got shot, and it worked pretty damn good... so we needed something that we knew would knock them on their ass. we also used them to conserve ammo for the first few days since we were not sure if we would be supplied fast enough... thats the story behind 3/1 and the Ak. RPGs were also picked up and used against their owners..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.107.61 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Either one of you find a Dragunov in Iraq? Rmt2m 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

13OCT06- I personally never saw a dragunov in Iraq, but I did see a number of "sniperized" AK-47s with hunting scopes and carbon fiber "dragunov style" stocks like you get from mail order gun shops . Most insurgents just use ineffective "spray and pray" fires anyway. I did get sniped at by an insurgent in the Adhyamiyah District of Baghdad, he damn near got me, if it had been day it would have been a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.232.46 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did yall get the guy that was sniping you? Also, did anyone in your unit have a Benelli? Seems like a high brass shell from one of them would drop a doped up insurgent pretty well. Rmt2m 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, calling White phosphorous a "chemical weapon" is like calling a lead bullet a "chemical weapon" because lead is poisonous. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits weapons that kill by poisoning, not happen to be poisonous but kill by other means, in this case, heat and combustion. Weapons that kill by heat and combustion have been around since the beginning of history, ranging from the simple torch thrust into a wooden barracks to modern high explosives, and are unmistakably allowed under the Fourth Geneva Conventions and the customary rules and articles of war (unlike chemical weapons). A subsequent protocol to those conventions outlawed incendiary weapons, but the US, along with most industrialized nations, have not signed nor are bound by those protocols. Incendiary weapons are very useful when you're fighting an enemy who's taken cover (such as in a ditch or an abandoned house), as they don't need to directly hit an enemy to neutralize them. Unlike chemical weapons, that kill by poisoning, white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons, once used, are rendered neutral. Modern chemical weapons remain in the soil, on plants, animal carcasses, and have lethal potentials ranging into months. In a chemical war, anyone without protection who remained in the battlefield would likely be killed; crops would be spoiled, pollinators would die, starvation would set in, it would be a civilian and ecological catastrophe practically beyond imagination. That's why chemical weapons were banned. White phosphorous has a lethality potential of seconds. Once it burns, it's rendered neutral and can't really hurt anyone. (When it burns, however, the consequences are quite lethal for those who are burned.)

The lawful use of white phosphorous, like any military weapon, must be directed towards combatants. If civilians are in the vicinity of the combatants that a soldier is trying to neutralize, and are endangered by the use of white phosphorous (or any military weapon), then the soldier must determine whether the potential harm done to the civilians is outweighed by the military necessity of neutralizing the enemy combatants. If enemy combatants are hiding and shooting from a civilian house that appears unoccupied, then use of white phosphorous would probably be lawful. If combatants are hiding in a school known to be occupied by children, then the use of white phosphorous would be unlawful. The residents of Fallujah were told to evacuate. And you can't expect soldiers coming under fire to consult a law book before they return fire. They weren't shooting at civilians; they were shooting at those who shot at them.

In war, errors occur, mistakes are made, and lots of people die. But those errors aren't criminal unless they were committed with intent to kill civilians or deliberate indifference to civilian lives (like bombing an occupied orphanage or hospital) that make those errors, for all intents and purposes, intentional.

Don't try to confuse the legality of an lawful, honorable operation by law-abiding, honorable soldiers with the legality of a stupid, misguided, possibly criminal war ordered by the possibly criminal Mr. Bush and the definitely criminal Mr. Cheney. Attack the war itself and those who started it. Katana0182 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A subsequent protocol to those conventions outlawed incendiary weapons, but the US, along with most industrialized nations, have not signed nor are bound by those protocols.

That appears to be false. All of the G8 countries have signed the CCW of 1980,[6] several of them with added notes of understanding. The USA is the only one which has chosen to sign only provisions I and II, and not be party to provisions III–V (regarding incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons, and explosive remnants of war). —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 16:26 Z

Jaysh Muhammad

I was reading the DCI WMD report and found like 10 pages about this group and their subgroup al-Abud Network. I have created pages for both now. While researching this topic I found that Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, a former Iraqi colonel was captured during this raid, he was the leader of Jaysh Muhammad and his confession tied Iranian funds and weapons to Iraq. I believe his confession is debated, but thought I would drop the info here for you guys in case you wanted it. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Wandalstouring 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy 3-1, 2-7 again. I concurr with your assesment about the insurgents use of street drugs like meth-amphetimine and cocaine to boost performance. I was with Charlie 2-7 CAV(MECH) attacking along Route Henry and we found caches of illicit drugs along with huge weapons caches and torture chambers. We recovered two Iraqi Army soldiers who had been captured by insurgents and tortured. When I say "torture" I am not referring to sleep deprivation or embarrassing pictures but these men had been electrocuted, had fingernails pulled out and fingers and toes smashed with hammmers. As far as I know no one from my company used enemy weapons. We carried triple combat loads of ammo for all our weapons from 25mm down to 5.56mm on our Bradleys, so we never came close to running out of ammo. So we destroyed any enemy weapons we found especially RPGs, 12.7mm machine guns and mortars on site because we expected them to be booby-trapped. To solve the problem of our 5.56mm not putting insurgents on the ground quick enough, we begain intentionally aiming low to hit insurgents in the legs, preferably in the pelvic girdle rather than shoot center mass. We found that if 5.56 hits a bone in the hips or legs they would drop in their tracks. Several times I saw where rounds skipped off the pavement and hit insurgents in the shins or knees, causing them to drop like stones. Once immobilized we would then fire additional rounds at the torso or head, if time allowed, to ensure a kill. It took us a day or two to figure this out and we saw many times where 5.56mm would pass right through insurgents torsos and not make contact with any bone. These individuals would continue to run even though I'm pretty sure they died later on due to infection or blood loss. However a coked-out, wounded insurgent can still be deadly as all know who were in Fallujah or Najaf. Peace Love and Chicken grease to my brother devil dog from 3-1 Marines. Oh and thanks for the beer, I never needed a cold brew so bad as I did then.....LOL Hooah and Oorah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.232.46 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice story and I guess its probably true. The use of drugs for hit-and-run attacks is an old and widespread phenomena in militaries, but do you have some verifiable sources on the subject? If you can talk so openly here about this stuff perhaps you can create a website which we can quote if there is no other source. The only verifiable source is my own personal experience in this battle, I suppose you could check out "No True Glory" by Bing West Wandalstouring 17:54, 12 December

2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Any thoughts on renaming it to Battle of Fallujah or Second Battle of Fallujah? To follow the guidelines....--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should change the name. --Merat 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More mistakes

This article describes the two Army units that were in the battle as "cavalry". 2nd batallion, 2nd Infantry and 2nd batallion, 7th Cavalry are both mechanized infantry batallions. Even though 2-7 CAV bears the "Cavalry" designation, it is manned entirely by 11 Bravos (infantrymen) except for mechanics and support personnel. 2-7 merely bears the "CAV" designation because it is part of the First Cavalry Division, which is merely an armored division these days, where all it's manuever batallions bear the CAV designation whether or not they are mechanized infantry or armor. To clarify futher confusion, whenever divisions deployed before 2005's reorganiztion of 1st Cav to the "brigade combat team" concept, they would "task organize", mixing and matching mech infantry and armor to best suit the mission that "task force" would have. For example when we, 2-7 CAV, deployed to Iraq, we traded our Bravo company to 3-8 CAV, a tank battalion for one of their companys. So when we went into Fallujah, Charlie company had 2 platoon's of mech infantry and 1 tank platoon. Under the new "brigade combat team" concept, the batallions consist of two mech companies, two tank companies, one bradley equipped engineer company a support company and a headquarters company. This organization gives a batallion commander his own organic tanks, mech infantry, engineers and logistical support, therfore streamlining operations and allowing units to be organized in garrison the same way they will be deployed. I myself served with 2-2 Infantry from 1998 to 2001 and deployed with the batallion to Kosovo in 1999 and I served with 2-7 CAV from 2001 to 2005 and I deployed with this battalion to Iraq and fought in what we agree to call The 2nd Battle of Fallujah, November, 2004. I tell you this so that you will know that this information is coming from a reliable source. At this time I don't think 1st Infantry Division has re-organized to the brigade combat team model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.61.130 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You can correct such things on your own. Perhaps your unit is interested in creating its own wikipedia account for such statements (for example User:14thArmored has one and works openly on the article concerning the U.S. 14th Armored Division and related subjects). Wandalstouring 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy link

[8] contains cemetery records, sometimes including exact names, sometimes of unidentified remains. Might be useful later on Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Massacres in Iraq

First, no matter whether the US military is by its own standards allowed to employ WP (few crimes against humanity were ever illegal under the jurisdiction in question), use of WP under conditions where there is very real possibility that civilians will be harmed by it is in violation of international human rights standards. There is ample evidence of dead civilians in Fallujah showing injuries that can best be attributed to the effects of WP (severe burns, wounds apparently caused by a corrosive agent), and there is occasional testimony of US troops suggesting that WP was being fired into homes without regard to possible presence of civilians, and that fact deserves scrutinity as it is a most serious allegation and comes close to self-incrimination.
There is, at face value, not sufficient evidence on hand to discredit the possibility that WP was indeed used in a way that constitutes a human rights violation, and that there might have even been instances where civilians were deliberately targeted in some sort of "all-hajis-look-alike" battlefield paranoia as was widespread during these days (reading the old news reports underscores that the battle was considered to be a hard and bloody one by the troops on the ground, and Nov/2004 was the month that saw the most US troops killed since war start as of now). That is the nature of this conflict, like any where the OPFOR consists of irregulars. This itself is of course illegal, but that one side in a conflict does not stick to the rules of playing it as nice as war can be played at all has no bearing on what is legally allowed for the other side. (The Malmedy massacre did not make the Chenogne incident - if it happened as reported, and the evidence is less in this case than for reckless killing of civilians in Fallujah - any less of a crime).
That being said, this article being one of 3 in the category in question, would it not be better to merge said category into Category:History of Iraq entirely, at least at present? The problem is that it is a viable part of Category:Massacres by country. I have restored the category for this article, all the while realizing that it is controversial. But the NPOV would be that some things happened down there the extent of which cannot be readily verified, but which, if even some of the less serious allegations are correct, would be considered a "massacre" by most people, as noncombattants were drawn into an armed conflict needlessly and subjected to extreme brutal and cruel violence using controversial weaponry in a way that is condemned if not an outright war crime. (This may be hard to swallow by US citizens. But NPOV must prevail, and face it: war is an ugly business, and no military force in the world is immune from such incidents. The US occupation of Iraq is anything but squeaky-clean, and while I reject attempts to butcher the dead all over again for propagandistic purposes, I just as well reject attempts to whitewash.)

I cannot take a firm stand on the category issue; my restoration of the category tag was for the one and only reason that this article had been categorized thus for some months now and that such a categorization, being debatable, should not be removed without a debate. If it comes to a vote, I will not participate.

If it is a "massacre" when Saddam's henchmen raided a recalcitrant village that harbored Shi'a insurgents and indiscriminately gunned down civilians in the process, I fail to see why Fallujah 2 was certainly not a "massacre" though. Few Iraqis that got caught up in the war against their will make much of a difference between a Ba'athist death squad and a platoon of angry Marines, and I believe the testimony of people who had to suffer through Saddam's reign, the war, and all that, more than the testimony of an US soldier involved in the assault who simply cannot know what constitutes a "massacre" because he either never was involved in one or perpetuated one himself. In a nutshell, to unequivocally state "civilians were massacred during Phantom Fury" is as non-NPOV as to state that no such incident(s) took place. All that can be said - probably for all eternity - is that dozens of civilians at least died under circumstances that strongly suggest that indiscriminate violence affecting civilians on some scale was indeed perpetrated by US troops (it was not Iraqi forces as they did not (yet?) have WP in 2004). Was the use of WP in the way it was used authorized? Were inhabited homes intentionally and knowingly "smoked out"? It is likely that we never find out for sure, but that the DoD is stonewalling any serious attempt to find out what was going on does not at all speak of a clean conscience.
(FWIW, there indeed was a "Fallujah massacre". It happened on April 28, 2003, when US troops hosed down a crowd of protesters with automatic weapons after some small arms were or were not fired from it (pistols were present and rocks were thrown, but whether there were aimed shots at US troops cannot be resolved at present given the tendency of Arabs to shoot off weapons into the air even in inappropriate situations), killing 15 civilians and wounding some 4 dozen. That does definitely qualify as a "massacre" and was an event of major historical significance, as it started a chain of events that would eventually culminate in the subject of this here article. But the 4-28 incident does not have an own article; if it had I would say it is a far better candidate for categorizing thus than this article here.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

2-7 Cav again. Once again let me go back over the fact that as I was a particpant in the battle, we did not at any time intentionally target unarmed civilians during Operation Phantom Fury. We could only get clearance for indirect fires or airstikes if we had actually taken fire from a building. Inhabited buildings did get destroyed by US artillery, mortars and airstikes, but the buildings were inhabited by enemy combantants. Once again, I did not see this on the internet, in a book or on CNN but with my own eyes as a combatant. To call Operation Phantom Fury a massacre is in my own view innacurate, and inflamatory. It was a battle between two armed factions that resulted in more than 1500 enemy KIA's and the capture of Fallujah. I would like to point out that I am no longer a member of the US military since leaving in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.63.204 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that you being there is relevant to the discussion. I have seen photos of civilians with white flags dead. This to me is more relevant. Also mainstream press (maybe not in u.s.) describe it as a massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.162.102 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell??

Why this "Nirvana77" guy is pushing the wrong figure EVERY TIME I CORRET THIS?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&diff=118318608&oldid=118122130
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&diff=120086240&oldid=119887294

Seriously, WTF. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow

This article has fragmentary information, poor grammar, and horrible spelling. In the timeline section it said Lt. Duffey, CO, 3rd batallion. Lieutenants do not command batallions. Was he a Lt. commanding a platoon, or was he a Lieutenant Colonel? Please help.--MKnight9989 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction

RCT-7 had Company C, 3rd LAR not 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.117.79 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geneva convention

It is however reported that 66 out of the city's 133 mosques were discovered holding significant amounts of insurgent weapons [9], a violation of Article 16 of the Geneva Convention. [10]

The Sunni insurgency was not a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Convention, so it is unfair to say they violated anything. (Just as the US did not sign the 1980 protocol III of the CCW, regulating the use of incendiary devices against civilians.) This statement implies an unfair POV. —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 16:35 Z

However, the US is a signatory, and I think showing that the destruction of mosques was justified under international law is important. Otherwise, it's another Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, it may violate WP:SYN if there isn't a source that specifically links these mosques with the Geneva Conventions. I don't think the GC should be mentioned. Isaac Pankonin 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It may be argued that the US was justified in entering mosques because they had good information that they were being used by the insurgency—but then, of course, we should cite sources which argues for or against this point of view.

I think it's also inappropriate to simply cite the Geneva Convention, to support the assertion that the Conventions is being violated. It takes an expert to judge whether this is the case. Unfortunately, the first citation in this paragraph is now offline, not present at archive.org, and was inadequately cited (lacking title, author, date) so that it is impossible to locate. —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 19:50 Z

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

The image Image:Iraqi-woman-incinerated-by-american-chemical-weapons-while-praying-with-beads--fallujah--us-war-crimes.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First of all, I removed a sentence about George Monbiot under the White Phosphorous section, due to POV issues. "critically assessed" and "interesting" is POV, and needs to be rewritten. Secondly, the lead needs to be rewritten to better summarise the battle, rather than spend the majority of the lead talking about the first battle in April 2004. Lawrencema (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes

Why doesn't this article have any mention of alleged war crimes? The use of chemical warfare as well as indiscriminate killings have been alleged to be violations of international law and war crimes by various critics. I think that, regardless of whether you agree with the charges or not, they should be mentioned in the article. Wikipediarules2221 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Throwing around unsubstantiated accusations of war crimes is a favorite pastime in many circles. The gulf between the accusations and evidence tends to be pretty wide though. Is there anything in particular you think should be represented in this article? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Every war has war crimes. It doesn't have to be big and bold for people to know. Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

War crimes "discussion" does not belong in the article about the battle. Leave political crap out of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09bil98z24 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Two links are given to back up the idea that 6,000 civilians died. One is a link from an anti-war group that mentions unnamed "preliminary reports" citing 6,000 "Iraqi" deaths (which could mean insurgent and civilian). The other is a letter that makes no such estimate. It seems like we need better sourcing to determine the number of civilian casualties in Fallujah. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Iraq Body count claims that less than 3,000 civilians total were killed in Iraq in November and December 2004. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.126.117 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason it says "~ 800" in Losses and Casulties:

"U.S.: 92-95 killed, 560 wounded[5][6] (51 killed Nov.8-16 in initial invasion) [7][8]

Iraqi: 11 killed, 43 wounded UK: 3 killed, 8 wounded[9][10] 1,350+ killed (U.S. est.) 1,500+ captured[11][12][13] ~800 civilians killed[14]"

Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)