Newsgroup: it.cultura.militare
Titolo: Il NYT sulle verità di Fallujia

Roma, 29 novembre 2005
L’editoriale del New York Times suggella definitivamente la validità 
dell’inchiesta di Rai News 24 su quanto accaduto nella battaglia di 
Fallujah.
Dopo venti giorni di smentite e di successive mezze ammissioni da parte 
del Pentagono, dopo i dubbi e le critiche avanzate da autorevoli esperti 
americani sull’uso del fosforo bianco contro i civili – poi a loro volta 
costretti a clamorose mezze ammissioni – la verità denunciata da Rai 
News 24 ha prevalso.
Dopo le reazioni all’inchiesta di Sigfrido Ranucci, curata da Maurizio 
Torrealta, dopo alcune accuse strumentali di parzialità, avremmo potuto 
fermarci, altri – è accaduto – si sono in questi casi intimiditi.
Noi siamo andati avanti, abbiamo cercato testardamente testimonianze e 
conferme. Prestigiosi canali televisivi, come la BBC, ci hanno seguito e 
così settimanali come “L’Espresso”.
C’è dunque spazio per inchieste giornalistiche serie su temi scottanti, 
per un’informazione libera e documentata. Un chiaro messaggio per la 
stampa e la televisione italiana. E ci viene dalla grande stampa 
americana la riprova che in quel sistema, oggi così repressivo e chiuso 
in una sorta di crociata conservatrice, c’è ancora un’anima profonda, lo 
spazio per mettersi in discussione, la voglia di libertà.
L'editoriale del New York Times
Shake and Bake
Published: November 29, 2005
Let us pause and count the ways the conduct of the war in Iraq has 
damaged America's image and needlessly endangered the lives of those in 
the military. First, multilateralism was tossed aside. Then the 
post-invasion fiasco muddied the reputation of military planners and 
caused unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth undermined the 
credibility of United States intelligence and President Bush himself, 
and the abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high ground.
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised 
questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian 
casualties. It has also further tarnished America's credibility on 
international treaties and the rules of warfare.
White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned 
generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a 
battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy's positions. 
It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they 
touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for 
hours inside a human body.
The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white 
phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention 
banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes 
ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish 
rebels and civilians in 1991.
But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback. Italian television 
reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against 
insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only 
to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out 
that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white 
phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to 
have one of those unsettling military nicknames: "shake and bake."
The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but 
there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can't say 
whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a 
decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the 
Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce civilian casualties, but 
they cannot say what those measures were.
They also say that using white phosphorus against military targets is 
legal. That's true, but the 1983 convention bans its use against 
"civilians or civilian objects," which would make white phosphorus 
attacks in urban settings like Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The 
United States signed that convention, but the portion dealing with 
incendiary weapons has been awaiting ratification in the Senate.
These are technicalities, in any case. Iraq, where winning over wary 
civilians is as critical as defeating armed insurgents, is no place to 
be using a weapon like this. More broadly, American demands for 
counterproliferation efforts and international arms control ring a bit 
hollow when the United States refuses to give up white phosphorus, not 
to mention cluster bombs and land mines.
The United States should be leading the world, not dragging its feet, 
when it comes to this sort of issue - because it's right and because all 
of us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms 
of conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why 
torture should be banned in American
  prisons. And it is why the United States should stop using white 
phosphorus.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/opinion/29tue1.html

 News 24 ha prevalso.
Per circoscrivere la questione, direi che sono esclusi dal diritto di
lamentarsi di questi fatti,  tutti quei paesi che, al recente vertice di
Barcellona,  si sono rifiutati di condannare senza riserve ("senza se e
senza ma") gli attacchi commessi proditoriamente e quotidianamente dal
terrorismo di matrice islamista contro civili indifesi .
Non solo contro civili usati come scudi umani da forze irregolari, ma anche
contro civili che, in contesto assolutamente pacifico, costituiscono l'unico
obiettivo degli attacchi.
Io non so se gli USA, come stato, hanno violato il diritto internazionale,
mirando a civili inermi e pacifici al solo scopo di colpirli.
Se e' cosi', accompagneremo gli USA fuori dalla casa della legge
internazionale.
La' fuori si troveranno comunque in buona compagnia, perche' vi sono
parecchi paesi che, come gia' visto, in quella casa non sono mai entrati.
Ciao
Marco