Warning: not for sensitive stomachs…Very graphic images of unpleasantness! Don’t watch if you don’t want to see images of corpses disfigured by chemical weapons.
Here’s a BBC report on the documentary.
neither of 'em worked for me.
try it this time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/4417024.stm
edit:That’s really odd these ain’t working either…gimme 5.
try this one…
If that doesn’t work go to this page: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784
and click the link to the video “fallujah 8-9 november”
right…this one should definitely work…What a palava.
the middle link is the english version.
I’ve found out why the BBC link wasn’t working, take a gander at this…
A good attempt at a conspiracy theory, but no cigar. The links didn’t work because they had been shortened by putting “…” in the middle, not because of the changed title… 
Phil
ahh gotcha…Have you read how the beeb have changed the article though. It’d be interesting to know who ordered the change.
The BBC changes titles and content of articles all the time; I know a few articles that have been changed simply because of email from readers for factual inaccuracies or badly phrased comments. In this case a title suggesting the US had used chemical weapons would be very misleading; most people would see the title and think of gas weapons or suchlike, which isn’t the case here. An incendiary device such as mentioned in the article is no more a “chemical weapon” than a conventional bomb. I don’t see anything controversial about the change.
One point I did notice about the article though, in the information box on the right: “Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians”. I would have thought the choice of weapon would be a rather moot point compared to the act of attacking civilians itself…
Phil
It’s only an incendiary device by US definition. It’s considered an illegal chemical warfare agent by the countries which signed the extension to the UN treaty on chemical weapons which includes the UK.
A quick google doesn’t seem to match this… do you have a source? The term “agent” seems inappropriate given that there are no controls on the substance, just the delivery method.
A device like that mentioned in the BBC article would seem to fall under the criteria for incendiary devices given in the UN CCW Convention, which would suggest the article is correct in using the term “incendiary” rather than “chemical”.
Phil
Going back to the original point, though; if the report is true (although I haven’t seen the other links yet I am sceptical, given the high probability of political bias on it) then… what? The US breaking UN conventions won’t surprise anybody, and the US is unlikely to suffer any official reprimand for having done so.
It will just be another argument for those already opposed to the actions of the US in Iraq - verbally or by the more obvious means in Iraq itself - that doesn’t really affect anything in the long term.
Phil
Sorry, I got a bit muddled, it’s Mk 77 which is banned under treaty not white phos. http://www.iraqanalysis.org/briefings/232
It may not effect much in the long term…But it might. The pictures of kids burned by napalm in Vietnam had a massive effect on the popularity of the vietnam war. I think it’s better that people get to see the effects of weapons and war itself so that people may think twice before banging the war drum next time.
It’s all about people power…If enough people are sickened by what the military/government representing them and their country are doing then perhaps things might change.