"Iraq, Ramzaj and a Neutron Bomb" photo at Russian site iraq-war.ru, with caption: "Burned out Abrahms at Baghdad airport. The battle of Baghdad Airport marked the end of the Ramzaj reports, while the US media's war and US casualty reporting disconnected completely from reality.
The Battle of
posted 23 May 2009
Most recently updated, reedited 6 Nov 2011
When the Sept 11, 2001 attacks
took place, Capt. May initially accepted the official government story and national media
accounts at face value for emotional reasons. In fact, he felt a strong patriotic urge to get back into the military
and go overseas to fight Muslim insurgents.
By fall 2003 he became so embittered
with the Bush administration that he wrote a hostile email to neo-con national
media pundits Hannity and Colmes:
I’ll tell you what, I’ll reactivate my commission if you’ll enlist for some
combat. I’ve already tried to do it
after 911, I even went to my best man and best friend, Chase Untermeyer, (a
Bush family friend and former Asst Secretary of the Navy for Reagan/Bush), and
asked him to pull strings to get me into the Marines or the Navy. It was April 5, 2002, the 25th anniversary of my first enlistment at 17. Call him and ask, coward. Here’s his number…I’m for real, just ask
him. Ask him about me, boy. You see, I
was getting a little bored teaching martial arts and practicing weapons, and I
was ready for a little action. I had no luck, though. The services all rejected me because of a
couple of fights I had on my record.
first foreshadowing of high level intrigue that literally hit home for Captain
were National Security Agency
(NSA) warnings of a terror attack that preceded the American invasion of
in March 2003. May commented in a Zeph
Captain May: The NSA had been leaking information that was
published in the local media in
effect that Al Qaeda was planning a strike against the
port facility and they started doing
that in 2002. Now that made perfect sense to me, and I even wrote a piece for
the Houston Chronicle about it. The
target analysis of
was the most
likely target in the nation. Because the Bush family was there. Because oil
targets are the easiest to blow up. Because NASA was there. I did not realize
that I was playing right into the setup scenario. The reason the media was
running that story that NSA had overheard Bin Laden talking about blowing up
fact there is a
in my state-- was because we were supposed to be getting our minds ready. They
tell you what they are going to do before they do it. That way when you do it,
you are not surprised and you think it makes sense.
May wrote his article, “Don’t
laugh at duct tape, it saves lives” Houston
Chronicle Outlook, which was published on February 23, 2003. Later, he would construe a macabre
coincidence with this article, just like the KPRC editorial mentioned in
Chapter One that coincided with the date of the
poise to attack
our military leaders worry that our forces will have to survive and function on
the “dirty battlefield” of chemical and biological contaminants. They are
preparing for that worst-case scenario, which is the best thing to do. Here at
home, on the other hand, I’m afraid that too many of us are expecting the
best-case scenario – that we will be untouched by the war – which is the worst
thing to do. We are negligent in our civil defense.
the duct tape squabble as an example. Earlier this month, the Bush
administration heightened the nation’s alert status, and gave the specific
advice that citizens have emergency supplies, including duct tape and plastic
sheeting, in the event of possible chemical or biological attacks on American
soil. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, more concerned with the war for the
presidency in 2004 than the war for
in 2003, mocked the
administration’s ineptitude, saying that it would have to do better than duct
tape to protect the American people.
is wrong. One of the first tricks of survival in a contaminated environment is
to seal up a room with duct tape and plastic, breathing the ample inside air
until any wind-borne toxins outside have dissipated.
Daschle’s argument, I went down to a local hardware store to get supplies a few
days ago, only to learn that he had already influenced many shoppers. Duct tape
and plastic sheets in hand, I asked the checkout clerk from the back of the
line how many people were stocking up on the items. “Not many,” she replied,
“duct tape won’t work.” I explained to her why duct tape would work. To most of
the shoppers in earshot, this seemed to be welcome news, and several of them
went back to the shelves for supplies. The hardware store made a handful of
dollars in profit, and a handful of people made purchases that could save their
is the time for all wise people to come to the aid of… themselves. Civil
defense, like all forms of self-defense, is an unpleasant concept. It demands
that we accept our own stated reason for going to war: There are evil people in
the world who hate and seek to harm us with weapons of mass destruction. We are
in a war with terrorists – and terrorists are in a war with us. Not just with
our service personnel, intelligence agencies and police forces; not just with
citizens of our political and financial capitals, but with all of us.
Terrorists deal in terrifying deeds. The know that a thousand civilian
casualties in America are more devastating to the nation’s morale than a
thousand U.S. military casualties in Iraq, and may well be easier to inflict.
unquestionably among the top homeland targets for agents of evil. Consider:
· We’re the nation’s fourth most populous city.
I was a general staff officer we routinely envisioned worst-case scenarios to
test our preparedness. Let’s use one for ourselves:
· We’re the home of the Johnson Space Center
· We are the declared home town of the Bush family.
· We have the nation’s largest chemical district.
· Our climate enhances the lethality of a chemical attack.
one morning there is a massive explosion in the chemical district along our ship
channel. Lethal gases, similar to the ones released in the catastrophe of
erupt into the atmosphere. An early morning inversion temperature gradient –
our climatic norm – keeps the toxic cloud on the ground, while gentle
southeasterly breezes – again, our norm – blow it northwest inside
610, where our population is most dense. It may
reach beyond that. In any case, the toxins would not dissipate until the
afternoon, when our atmospheric conditions usually cause ground pollution to rise.
anyone thinks that my scenario may give the bad guys ideas they haven’t already
thought of, think again. Terrorists like the ones who simultaneously hijacked
four planes and turned them into missiles are smart enough to think of blowing
up toxic factories in populous areas. They are constantly thinking of the bad
things they can do to us – and we’d better start thinking about them ourselves.
his 23 Feb 2006 Whalen interview, May admitted that: “Right
before the war started, I was publishing very strong pieces on the
war of terror specifically thinking that Al Qaeda was going to hit
us. So I was strictly on board with the Bush people going into the
beginning of the Iraq War.”
Illustration from the 10 Aug 2011 article Oslo
terror Illuminati Card by Tor Karlstad, [English
Translation page], nyhetsspeilet.no. "Conspiracy Theorists
are the enemy, but also to help Illuminata, while they can destroy
all their game by revealing it..." Also, please see the
discussion of "Predictive Programming" at the beginning
37 and also on the Fukushima
Catastrophe web page.
to May, government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency
would start issuing the same alert half a year after his initial analysis.
He later concluded that Bush insiders were hijacking work that
he naively created prior to the invasion for their own false flag
fact, May even thinks the publication date February 23, 2003, shown
numerically as 02-23-2003, might not have been an accident. I might
have had numerological significance for insiders, using the terror
date code system we will explore in greater detail later in this book. (As a sneak preview, 02-23-2003 converts
to 22323, which contains within it “322” backwards. “322” being the number that
appears in the Skull & Bones logo.)
was another major anomaly that deeply concerned Capt May prior to
the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This existed
on a grand strategic level. Back
in 1992 he had written “Success
of Desert Storm being judged unfairly.” In this piece he
supported the decision by President George H.W. Bush to halt the advance
of American troops once they took Kuwait
, and not press on to Baghdad
. After all,
America had accomplished
its political objectives by driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait , and the costs of taking Baghdad and holding down
a hostile Arab country were probably not worth any long term gains.
that time, this opinion made him a “fair-haired boy” among
the general staff, because it was in line with their shared opinion
just prior to the invasion in 2003, he observed a complete flip-flop
among senior Army leaders in favor of invading
. They sheepishly followed the Bush establishment line, despite its
lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and connections with
May noted dryly in subsequent interviews that when promotions and
medals are at stake, it always hard for officers to question their
on retired LtGen William Odom, former Director of the National Security
Agency, would call America
’s invasion of Iraq
the greatest strategic disaster in American history.
failure of more officers to speak up would ultimately cost them far
more than personal promotions; it would threaten the survival of the
Constitution and this country.
warnings from major political leaders around the world that an invasion
of Iraq would be folly, and despite strenuous efforts by the Iraqi
government to comply with all of Bush’s demands to prove they
no longer had any weapons of mass destruction, George Bush and his
handlers had to go ahead and have their conquest of the oil rich enemy
of Israel anyway.
observes that “On March 17, 2003, George Bush addressed the
nation and demanded that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay
surrender and leave Iraq,
giving them a 48-hour deadline. But Bush actually began the bombing
on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003,
the bombing of Iraq
by the United States without UN support began, unlike
the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan.”
Angeles assistant district attorney Vincent
Bugliosi, author of the 2008 book The
Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, would later provide
the following testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding this invasion: (Reported in Wayne Madsen's 2 Aug 2008
Bugliosi: [In my book The
Prosecution of George W.] Bush for
Murder, I present evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that
Bush administration officials took this nation to war in
on a lie, under false pretenses, and
therefore under the law they are guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4000
young American soldiers who have died so far in
fighting their war. And let us
not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children, and babies who
have died horrible violent deaths because of this war. I am fully aware that
the charge that I have just made is a very serious one, but let me say that at
this stage of my career I do not have time for fanciful reveries. I never in a
million years would propose a murder prosecution of administration officials if
I did not believe there was more than enough evidence to convict them, and that
I was standing on strong legal ground. What is some of that evidence? Because
of time constraints I am only going to mention one piece of evidence today. I
have documentary evidence that when George Bush told the nation on the evening
of October 7th, 2002 that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security
of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact
opposite of what his own CIA had told administration officials just six days
earlier in a classified report on October the 1st, that Hussein was not an
imminent threat. But it gets worse. On October 4th the Bush administration put
out an unclassified summary version of the classified report so that they could
give it to Congress and the American people. And this unclassified version came
to be known as the White Paper. And in this White Paper which I have in front
of me, the conclusion of U.S. Intelligence that Saddam Hussein was not an
imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted. Every
single one of these all important words was taken out, so Congress and the
American people never saw any of this..
American media portrayed the
military blitzkrieg that swept from
for over 500 miles of up the Tigris and
Euphrates valleys towards
as an act of liberation. It was also
lauded as a resounding success, with few casualties.
As American troops were closing
stuck to the same position he had espoused before invasion. He penned his op-ed, “Visions
of Stalingrad: Claim victory in Iraq now” (Houston Chronicle Outlook,
April 3, 2003).
fare worse in the Iraqi summer than the Germans did in the Russian winter. Saddam
has likely stockpiled weapons of mass destruction for the grim eventuality of a
defense of his capital.
this we may infer that our troops, if ordered to storm
, will do so in a dirty battlefield of
chemical, biological and perhaps even radioactive contaminants. This means a
summer of donning protective clothing and straining to breathe through
protective mask filters while engaged in combat in the desert. Such predictions
would prostrate our forces and leave them highly vulnerable.
hard to take capital cities. Take World War II cities as examples.
endured years of German bombing;
withstood the German assault, while regional capitals
fought back legendary sieges.
leveled by years of Allied bombing before the Soviet army, hell-bent on
revenge, reached it. It still put up a street fight with the Red Army over the
rubble. Hundreds of thousands died.
wish neither to receive nor inflict such heavy casualties. Our plan for a quick
knockout – the classic aim of blitz warfare – is disappearing, and a protracted
war means more time for international frictions to spark new conflicts with an
lined up with us, not to forget
and sundry others. But
seem to have lined up
against us, not to forget the public opinion of the Islamic world. NATO is split.
The Arab world wants to convene a General Assembly of the United Nations to
condemn us. Meanwhile,
is threatening a nuclear tantrum and
is leaning toward rearmament.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has recently said that the world is at
its most dangerous point since the Cold War. A question frightens me: With all
this geopolitical jostling, just how many mistakes are we away from World War
should isolate Saddam’s capital, but not cross his so-called “Red Line” – the
point at which he will throw every dirty weapon he has at us. He’ll just die,
like Adolph Hitler before him, in a bunker with a funeral pyre instead of a
human city over him. We can’t let ourselves be called the new butchers of
believe that now is the time for the commander in chief to show the utmost
flexibility in his war plans. We and our brave ally,
, should proclaim victory on the basis of our
current successes: While we have not deposed Saddam, we have punished him by
reducing him from the president of
to the mayor of beleaguered
We have liberated the majority of
, and Saddam has cleared it of
weapons of mass destruction for us. We have achieved success, albeit limited.
Voters in our countries will condemn or praise the war, depending on whether or
not they liked the leaders in the first place.
is important that we share the control of liberated
with a coalition of other
nations who are sincere as we are about protecting its people and its
resources. That would assuage the errant world opinion that we are fighting a
war for oil.
May turned out to be right that
there would be a stiff fight for
. However, his article also shows the naïveté
of someone who still believed the official 9/11 story and still held enough
faith in his government to seriously consider reentering the military to fight in
In actuality, it was quickly
turning into a war for OIL, that is,
Logistical bases. The bad will and costs
of this war would threaten to become destructive to
’s long term legitimate
May had taken Bush administration
still had poison gas at face value. Other military experts such as the late Col David Hackworth, a respected
Vietnam War veteran and critic of Pentagon ineptitude who posted his columns at
sftt.org, had also strenuously warned about “the poisoned battlefield” before
the invasion. However, it turned out
that the Iraqis had already destroyed their poison gas stocks, as required in
the ceasefire agreement that ended Persian Gulf War I.
May had also assumed that the Bush
administration was concerned about achieving humanitarian objectives. He thought it cared about maintaining
international goodwill by limiting its military operations.
He underestimated the Bush
administration’s willingness to manipulate media, hide American casualties, engage
in torture, make first use of nuclear weapons, genocide hundreds of thousands
of innocent civilians through the use of depleted uranium, and completely
subordinate itself to Israeli goals.
Despite its limitations, May’s
piece was still a landmark dissenting opinion for its time. Capt May commented in his interview with
Iconoclast editor Leon Smith 2 April 2007 interview:
The same day my editor at the Chronicle ran the piece, he told me "I’m running it today
because you’re the voice in the wilderness and the Army’s going to reach
tomorrow and prove
you’re wrong." The next day, the Army reached
. We were overwhelmed at the
, we went nuclear, and we nuked
the Constitution to cover it up. I would say my prophecy of a quicksand war was
validated within 24 hours of going to press.”
Ironically, what American media conveyed to public was the exact
opposite of this. There was no
mention of troops getting overwhelmed at the
. No mention of the
going nuclear. There was not even any mention of a Battle of
For Captain May, the anti-climatic
media silence was thunderous. It was
analogous to an offensive team in the Super Bowl getting within a few yards of
touchdown, and suddenly the cameras shift to cheerleaders and the marching
band. The audience never gets to see the touchdown play. In his article “3/7 Cavalry, Tragedy
and Travesty” 13 April 2003, Capt May wrote:
My readings of the international press, my own
observations and a few choice conversations led me to believe that the American
media had self-mobilized to support the war effort, much in the same way it
self-mobilized to support the war effort in World War II; it had become
something of a national propaganda agency, like the former Soviet TASS, or like
Nazi Josef Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry. 911 was waved like a bloody shirt.
Whatever did fit the war picture (e.g., patriotism and profiteering) was hyped,
while whatever didn’t fit the war picture (e.g., lack of WMD evidence and lack
of terrorist connection evidence) was neatly omitted. The propaganda crested as
forces approached the
which they began to surround for an eventual assault…
As American forces closed in on
, Saddam Hussein
promised another “mother of all battles.” He had tens of thousands of Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam (guerillas)
sworn to fight to the death.
According to Captain May, on
Friday night, April 4, the 3rd Infantry Division had seized control
airport after a three-day fight. It left its scout unit, the 3/7 Cavalry,
to hold the airport while it encircled the city. There was plenty of
tension in the faces of the TV embeds that night, because Saddam Hussein had
promised an “unconventional” attack before dawn, which consisted of five
regiments of his Republican Guard and units of his guerilla force Fedayeen
… Well, he kept his promise. Friday night at 8:30
p.m. (Central), I was watching CNN showing the predawn of Saturday 5:30 morning
half-way around the world in
at once the skyline of the besieged city erupted with the flash and report of
sustained explosions. The CNN people (Aaron Brown and Fredricka Whitfield)
reacted with surprise, saying that
public affairs hadn’t alerted
them that there would be a major fire mission tonight. I immediately became
anxious, knowing it exceedingly unlikely that public affairs hadn’t contacted
affected media about a major fire mission in a choreographed war. “It probably
wasn’t us doing the firing,” I thought.
the next few minutes CNN’s reporter Walter Rodgers, embedded with the 3/7
Cavalry, attempted to make a report from the
Rodgers’ voice was indistinguishable because of the extreme background noise of
artillery impacting around him, automatic small arms fire striking his vehicle and
the shouts of the soldiers inside. It was the fog of war, no doubt about it.
Aaron Brown offered no explanation of the noise, merely stiffly saying that the
network was having technical difficulties.
Walter Rodgers’ luck held. A half hour later Fredericka and Aaron were off the
clock and Larry King Live carried an interview between Rodgers and Lt. Col.
Terry Ferrell – the commander of the very 3/7 Cavalry under fire at the
airport. I had never seen the unit commander in two weeks of the TV war, so his
sudden appearance was just more sad corroboration of my theory that we were
getting the worst of it in the early Battle of Baghdad. Lt. Col. Ferrell
bravely tried to keep a straight face as he told Rodgers that all was well at
the airport, but ended up in tears; Rodgers was too choked up to pick up the
conversation. The put-up interview was yet more tragic corroboration of my sad
analysis, and I began to cry along with Lieut. Col. Ferrell and Rodgers, for
the boys of the 3/7 Cavalry, remembering that I had once been a young
…. The attack made military sense for the Iraqis. The airport was key terrain
for the control of
and had been fiercely contested. It would have been a surprise to me if they
had not rigged it as a booby trap, targeted it for a counterattack, or both.
Saddam had banked on winning the war
by repeating the debacle of
, in which
a handful of well-publicized casualties had swung American public opinion
against military involvement in
he had executed the best ambush
since the Little Big Horn, where Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull destroyed the
same Seventh Cavalry Regiment. By morning writers would pen the name George
“Custer” Bush and national resolve for the war would plummet.
When Capt May appeared on the Hal Turner
talk show, a caller, “Rick from Ohio,” explained how national media handled the
Battle for Baghdad Airport.
just wanted to remind people that the problem with people in this country is
they don't have a memory. But if you remember back when, what did they call
him, Baghdad Bob was on TV.
Rick: He was talking about the
Battle of Baghdad, he said the American forces had penetrated into the airport,
but they were immediately counter attacked by Fedayeen and Iraqi forces and
they were being pushed out as he spoke. Now this ties in with what he said
there was an ongoing battle there, had been going on for hours, but they were
being driven out, they were being destroyed by the Iraqi forces.
Rick: And then the way the media
handled it, of course, they showed film of humvees parked outside the airport,
GI's walking around and then they just laughed at Baghdad Bob. The spokesman,
and that is when they gave him the nickname "Baghdad Bob."
Turner: I remember.
Rick: And they just laughed at him
and tried to humiliate him and that was the propaganda on the American people.
Because it is easy for them to go in there, get out, take a little footage of the
troops walking around, before the counter attack comes.
Rick: So the effect is here, he was
telling the truth.
Turner: He was.
Rick: Their response to him was to
laugh at him. Ridicule him.
In contrast, Arab media provided a totally different
picture of this battle. It not only reported that Iraqis had recaptured the
airport, with hundreds of Americans killed in action, but also there were
scenes of American prisoners being beheaded.
The Bush Administration violently
retaliated against this media. May
The English-language web site for Al Jazeera paid events in
more attention. So many Americans were turning to it over the weekend
that its site crashed, and the archives for the events of April 5/6 still won’t
come up. The Arab journalists’ decision to stay close to the battle cost
them dearly, though. Several of them died in bad-luck bombings by the
military after the Battle of Baghdad was over…
…I fear my president ordered assassination in the
“bad luck” incidents of Army tanks shelling the
hotel that housed foreign
journalists. The Arab media believes it was murder, and they were telling the
truth about the 3/7 Cavalry. (3/7 Cav, Tragedy and Travesty).
Killing journalists to cover up a
story was bad enough, but the ultimate deception came when Bush administration
went nuclear. Capt May commented during his Hal Turner interview:
Capt May: …To get to the particular night of the
, there is something called The Secret History of the
War. Your folks can find
it by looking in the book store where there is very little told about the
Baghdad Airport battle, except that it was a six hour fight that reached close
quarters. Now I have picked up from different international contacts of mine
that it was at the point that there were actual war atrocities being carried
out on captured American soldiers on film. They got in close, there were
captured people, there were hundreds of dead boys, and what happened is that
after six hours of a fire fight, in which U.S. ground forces, that being the
Third Infantry Division, particularly the 3-7 Cavalry Squadron, the 101st
Airborne, and possibly some Marine forces, they expended all their ammo after
six hours. The Iraqis had at least five battalions of Republican Guard and
Fedayeen Saddam, or their volunteer forces.
Capt May: At the end of it all, with
forces running low
on ammo, somebody from somewhere gave authorization to use a neutron warhead
. Now I got this multi-source
through Army people who were there, Marine people who were there, and Arab
journalists who were there or who talked to people who were there. The
important thing is that the American boys did not know what had happened. They
were never --the details were never filled in. But what happened was the
American forces went and buttoned up inside their armored vehicles. Armored
vehicles have pretty good protection against radioactive transmission. They
have a good transmission factor, it is called in professional terms.
Capt May: Since they were inside and
buttoned up, the Iraqis were outside and exposed, and the way I got it from the
Iraqi side through Arab journalists, was they thought they were doing good
until all of a sudden they started melting. So at that point a nuke went off over
, maybe a series of nukes. And we
think neutron is enhanced radiation, as I am sure you know Mr. Turner.
Turner: Yes, I am aware of that. But
it wasn't a fission device, it wasn't the big bang, it was a neutron warhead.
Capt May: Right. You know, the old
Russians had a good propaganda line about that. The neutron warhead has high
toxicity because it has radioactive emission, but it has low burst, so the
Russians used to make a joke about it in the 1980's when we were trying to
introduce it into the European arsenal by saying it was the perfect capitalist
weapon because it killed people and saved property.
Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi, who commanded Iraqi forces at
, confirmed that Bush used a
neutron bomb in his 9 April 2007 Al
Jazeera interview 6 on the fourth anniversary of the fall of
. He said that it incinerated about 2,000 elite
Republican Guard troops but left buildings in tact.
The al-Rawi interview
Interestingly enough, shortly after
this interview David Hambling, author of “Weapons
Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World,” wrote that
has another weapon called the AGM-114N, which is a “thermobaric device” that
uses chemicals such as powdered aluminum to achieve a similar effect as a
neutron weapon. These kinds of weapons are also being used in
However, there is considerable
evidence that the Bush administration went nuclear-all-the-way with a neutron
bomb. May commented in Sunday Magazine “The Battle of
Unreported Neutron Bomb:”
If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced
radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects – death and disease.
It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of
things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no
particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a
decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact
that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and
also explains why it is that it had to be covered up. You can’t go to a country
to try to make sure that nobody tries to start a war with WMDs against you and
WMD ’em. It’s a highly embarrassing position to be in.
laid bare that
really wasn’t going into a limited war at all, it was going into a world war,
and prepared to use nukes. Incidentally, since the nuking of
the Bush Administration has retrofitted our military doctrine to allow for the
use of tactical nukes in that sort of situation.
From a strictly tactical point of
view, using a neutron warhead killed the Iraqis who were in the open, while
forces, who were inside armor, a chance at survival. Had I been one of the
commanders on the battlefield at
one would have
preferred the neutron option to being overrun and destroyed by the Iraqi
forces. But war is never simply tactical. As Clausewitz, the Prussian military
philosopher, puts it, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” It’s
on the political level that the nuking of
was a disastrous decision.
Unlike the nuking of
, which was admitted to the American
people, the nuking of
was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about
the conduct of the war. Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in
, and that only added to their hatred for the
, so the big picture of the
neutron bomb is that we saved
ourselves from limited military failure, but thereby caused ourselves unlimited
domestic and foreign disaster.
It’s one of history’s great ironies
that the Bush Administration was screaming that WMDs would be used on us in the
war, and then when all is said and done, WMDs were used — not on us, but by us.
Blog sites such as http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/27537 support the neutron bomb story. They
include accounts of top soil being extracted from the
airport, major portions of the
airport being placed off limits under guard, cancer symptoms associated with
air port workers, and a strong electromagnetic pulse that jolted electrical
utilities during the battle.
In his 11 Sept 2007 interview with Bob Stockwell, May elaborated on Al-Rawi's story and how he confirmed the neutron weapon from vets:
Bob Stockwell Was there a particular area of the airport where the neutron bomb was exploded?
Capt May: I cannot place it particularly, but I do know that there were bunker facilities of some sort within which the Fedayeen Saddam and the Republican Guard were staying. The Iraqi general Al-Rawi gives a figure of something like 20-30,000 who were "martyred." This is an Al-Jazeera interview of April 2007 coming a couple of days after my interview with the Iconoclast on the same material. Now the caveat here, one of the things you will hear about Baghdad Airport, BIA, Baghdad International Airport is an acronym for it, after the Battle of Baghdad --which by the way you will never hear on TV, you always hear "after the fall of Saddam." You will never hear the phrase "Battle of Baghdad" used to describe the Battle of Baghdad in 2003. But after the Battle of Baghdad, the first hint I caught that what I knew was a battle might have been a WMD, a nuclear biological chemical warfare scenario, was that there were huge amounts of dirt being trucked into and out of the Baghdad Airport. There was apparently a decontamination operation going on. Now the part that I discussed of there being a neutron warhead was widely stated throughout the Middle East on the Internet. It was Internet chatter that I picked up. I did not believe it at that point. It was only after I had gone through various sources which had to do with international scientific evaluations, cancer rates around the airport, of livestock and poultry kill-off around the Baghdad Airport, and then really I suppose the capper was when I went out to Camp Casey, I was part of the original Camp Casey, Texas. And I got together with some combat vets of the invasion, and we sat around and put together what they knew, because both of them were outside of Baghdad. One was a Marine barely outside when the Battle of Baghdad happened, the other was a U.S. artillerist barely outside when the Battle happened. And we had a couple of Arab journalists there and it became apparent very quickly that we put together the different things that people had seen. It was like a Perry Mason case. It became quite apparent there had been some kind of usage. The artillerist for instance was saying, our command kept saying there was an ammunition bunker was blowing up, but it went on for six hours. OK, well that doesn't work. So that was the battle sound. He said then towards the end of it they made us take cover, and evidently they had taken occupied bunkers, whatnot, so they were told to take cover within. He specifically said that the only person who saw what happened was the company commander. And I am thinking that poor man may have cancer by now if he stood up and was exposed to it. So the move to go nuclear with a neutron warhead at Baghdad airport seems pretty fixed in my mind. Whatever you see now --the only thing that would be interesting -- get a geiger counter or an alpha radiation badge and see what kind of reading you get.
Lastly, Leuren Moret, an international expert on
depleted uranium weapons, sent an email on 19 June 2004 to Capt May that
supported the neutron weapon account:
I spent a lot of time in 2003 in other countries attending conferences and
at the International Criminal Tribunal for
(18 public hearings and 4 tribunals) which was organized by Japanese
citizens. I met some high level Iraqis
who told me what they observed, and other nationalities who served as Human
Shields during the 2003 war in
I was told that there were 4 very
large flashes in close sequence in
at the beginning of the fighting. Later on after the Iraqis were defeated, the
closed the airport to ALL for about 2 weeks. I also read later about hundreds
of US driven dump trucks removing "contaminated" soil from the
airport and dumping it out in the desert and returning with clean sand. This was
supposedly to keep the occupying forces from "getting contaminated".
I do not know if it was to remove depleted uranium contaminated soil or US
bodies, but it could have been either or both.
Your story is very interesting and
convincing. I was reading Russian intel daily on the internet (translated into
English by reporters), reported from satellites, Russian intercepted
radio traffic in
, and personnel on the ground
reporting to the Russians. The
met formidable resistance and had a very much tougher time than reported here.
The sandstorms ate up engines and parts in aircraft that at one point more than
70% were on the ground with no parts to repair them. The air cover was the
backbone of the
part of the war. The Russians gave excellent details and an analysis of the
war, just like a sports game. It was fascinating.
Anyway, a deal had to have been made
at some point with the top Iraqis who were then flown out of the country. I was
notified by the UN Observer in
that it was reported in one Jordanian newspaper when there
was a sudden ceasefire, that Cheney's daughter was on the way to
with a delegation
from the State Dept. where she worked. (I think Condoleeza Rice went to
at that time but I am not sure) After the State Dept. delegation ended the
, they left and the war ended a
few days later.... because the
was sucking sand...
It was bad enough that the battle for the
was covered up –and stayed
covered up, but this was only the beginning. The Bush administration also covered up the overall battle for the city
lasted for several days. On top of all
this, it also fabricated a bogus story about Private Jessica Lynch as a distracter.
Captain May commented: (Leon Smith: 14 Aug 2006):
Battle of Baghdad started that night when the 3/7 Cavalry was engaged by Iraqi
forces at the
airport. I immediately knew they had covered up. There are 20 different
indicators I put on the introduction of my website of why I knew it was being
covered up, all of which I picked up as you would in your own area expertise if
you knew something was being covered up. The biggest clue was Jessica Lynch.
The media covered up the biggest
battle in decades by
contriving a human interest story. The Jessica Lynch story lasted until the
Army had taken
and they were ready to pull down the statue of Saddam. It was a total
Later, Jessica Lynch showed
tremendous moral courage and exposed the fabricated stories portrayed by
American media. Capt May commented:
So at last
we know the real Private Jessica Lynch: She was moving north across the
desert in a lost convoy when a rocket slammed into her vehicle, causing her to
crash, breaking her bones and knocking her out. She is a brave young
woman who served her country, bled for it, and sustained life-long injuries as a
result. Like all the other casualties, she deserves our deep respect and
But the truth above wasn’t what we
were told when Army public affairs created the “Private Jessica” hoax that
tantalized the nation for the weekend of April 5/6. No, that was a far
different person, described in terms like these:
Private Jessica killed four Iraqi
soldiers in a desperate firefight before her rifle jammed. She then
continued to fight, [burned up two clips
of ammunition, kept firing after bayoneted while] broken-boned and bayoneted, until captured. After being
held captive, she was heroically rescued in a bold Special Forces raid.
Now we know that the Army made it all up, but at the time we thought it was the
truth. As a former Army public
affairs officer, I’m outraged that my colleagues so abused the public trust…
In an effort to pierce through
the veil of propaganda during the Battle of Baghdad, Captain May compiled twenty one “indicators.”
The calendar for 1st two weeks of APRIL 2003:
Friday April 4th
1. Explosions outside
, circa 2130 hours (Eastern)
2. Report from Embed: shouts, explosions and automatic
fire hitting the vehicle.
3. CNN military experts, including General Clark, in
studio become pessimistic in
4. Larry King shouts “Oh, my God!” in studio, as images
come in. (He apparently
forgot that his mike was on.) c. 2215 hours
5. Lieutenant Colonel Ferrell, the 3/7 Cavalry Commander,
begins to cry in an
interview with CNN reporter Walter Rodgers.
to create the impression that all was going well at the
airport and asked how
were the troops? c. 2230. (
is close to tears, too.)
6. CNN report “Hundreds of reinforcements” rushing to
airport. c. 2245 hours
7. Fox concurrently reports reinforcements to airport.
8. 3rd Division of the U.S. Army 7th Cavalry reported as
on foray into
9. Baghdad Bob says Iraqi forces control airport, have
Saturday April 5th
10. Tape released of a jubilant Saddam Hussein (probably
taken the day before
when US troops took the airport and therefore stepped into
11. Pentagon cancels its 1230 (Eastern) briefing
12. Bush flies to Blair in
– stays Saturday and Sunday
13. CNN’s Aaron Brown says “There are things we can’t tell
14. Saturday evening CNN Christiane Amanpour, in a panel
broadly that the Arab and American media don’t agree on
the facts of ongoing
events. A flunky
editor lamely suggests that
Arab media should not be
making reports without hearing the American side first
(i.e., he doesn’t deny
any of the reports).
15. Sunday afternoon, c. 1900 (Eastern), a national
conservative talk show host
with Clear Channel Communications (950 AM in
) mocks the
newspaper figure of 200 American KIA at airport. After a
commercial break he
stops mocking Arab media, and begins to hint that
something terrible has
and that we need to rally
behind the President.
Monday April 7th
16. Shelling of Arab media in
Wednesday April 9th
17. In an interview: Aaron Brown asks: “Does the 3/7 feel
safe?” Walter Rodgers
answers: “Lieut. Colonel Ferrell summed it up for the men
when he said that
none of them would feel safe until they were home in
Other Broadcast Indicators
18. Wesley Clark leaves CNN, stressing his need to show
broadly impugns integrity of US media.
20. Al Jazeera English site crashes. (I still haven’t been
able to pull up its
archives for the weekend we took
21. Multiple confirmations by international students at
losses at airport.
Eyewitness accounts from foreign journalists completely contradicted
American media. One example includes the article “Battle of Baghdad” filed by
Independent, on Sunday, 6 April
2003. It hardly described an Iraqi
military ready to capitulate without drawing blood.
…there were the Iraqi bodies, piled high in the
back of a pick-up truck in front of me, army boots hanging over the tailboard,
a soldier with an automatic rifle sitting beside them. Beside the highway, a
squad of troops was stacking rocket propelled grenades beside a row of empty
shops as the ground beneath us vibrated with the impact of American air strikes
and shellfire. The area was called Qadisiya. It was
’s last front line.
enter its first hours yesterday, a
conflict that promises to be both dirty and cruel. Even the city’s police force
was sent to the front, its officers parading in a fleet of squad cars through
the central streets, waving their newly issued Kalashnikov rifles from the
is one to say of such frantic, impersonal – and, yes, courageous – chaos? A
truck crammed with more than a hundred Iraqi troops, many in blue uniforms, all
of them carrying rifles which gleamed in the morning sunlight, sped past me
towards the airport. A few made victory signs in the direction of my car – I
confess to touching 145km an hour on the speedometer – but of course one had to
ask what their hearts were telling them. “Up the line to death” was the phrase
that came to mind. Two miles away, at the Yarmouk hospital, the surgeons stood
in the car park in blood-stained overalls; they had already handled their first
intake of military casualties.
few hours later, an Iraqi minister was to tell the world that the Republican
Guard had just retaken the airport from the Americans, that they were under
fire but had won “a great victory”. Around Qadisiya, however, it didn’t look
that way. Tank crews were gunning their T-72s down the highway past the main
railway yards in a
convoy of armoured personnel carriers and Jeeps and clouds of thick blue
exhaust fumes. The more modern T-82s, the last of the Soviet-made fleet of
battle tanks, sat hull down around
with a clutch of BMP armoured vehicles.
Americans were coming. The Americans were claiming to be in the inner suburbs
which was untrue; indeed, the story was designed, I’m sure, to provoke panic
and vulnerability among the Iraqis.
or false, the stories failed. Across vast fields of sand and dirt and palm
groves, I saw batteries of Sam-6 anti-aircraft missiles and multiple Katyusha
rocket launchers awaiting the American advance. The soldiers around them looked
relaxed, some smoking cigarettes in the shade of the palm trees or sipping
fruit juice brought to them by the residents of Qadisiya whose homes – heaven
help them – were now in the firing line.
then there was the white-painted Japanese pick-up truck that pulled out in
front of my car. At first, I thought the soldiers on the back were sleeping,
covered in blankets to keep them warm. Yet I had opened my car window to keep
cool this early summer morning and I realised that all the soldiers – there
must have been 15 of them in the little truck – were lying on top of each
other, all with their heavy black military boots dangling over the tailboard.
The two soldiers on the vehicles sat with their feet wedged between the
corpses. So did
first victims of the day go to their eternal rest.
we attack,” the Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, was to
announce an hour later, and he reeled off a list of Iraqi “victories” to
sustain his country’s morale. Seven British and American tanks destroyed around
, four American personnel carriers and an
American aircraft destroyed near
At the airport, the Iraqis “confronted the enemy and slaughtered them”. Or so
we were told.
an Iraqi friend of mine who lives near the airport told me that he had seen a
tank on fire, a tank with a black “V” sign painted on its armour. The “V” is
the American symbol of “friendly force”, intended to warn their pilots from
bombing their own soldiers by mistake. So this must have been an American tank.
Mr Sahaf’s optimism got the better of him. Yes, he told journalists in
, Doura was safe,
Qadisiya was safe. Yarmouk was safe. “Go and look for yourselves,” he
challenged. Ministry of Information officials were ashen-faced. And when
foreign correspondents were bussed off on this over-confident adventure, they
were turned back at the Yarmouk hospital and the ministry buses firmly ordered
to carry reporters back to their hotel.
an earlier 35-minute journey around the shell-embraced suburbs proved one thing
yesterday: that the Iraqis – up till dusk at least – were preparing to fight
the invaders. I found their 155mm artillery around the centre of the city,
close to the rail lines. One artillery piece was even hauled up
Abu Nawas Street
by a truck whose soldiers
held up their rifles and shouted their support for Saddam Hussein.
all day, the air raids continued. It gets confusing, amid the dust and smoke,
all these new targets and new pockets of ruination. Was the grey-powdered
rubble in Karada a building yesterday, or was it struck last week? The central
telephone exchange had taken another hit. So had the communications centre in
Yarmouk. And then I noticed, along the front line where the Iraqi soldiers were
preparing to become heroes or “martyrs” or survivors – the last an infinitely
preferable outcome to the sanest of soldiers – how small craters had been
punched into the flowerbeds on the central reservations.
so slowly, the suburbs of
were being turned into battlefields.
Capt May wrote in Sept 2004 about how American media finally began to
leak truth about the Battle of Baghdad and the cover-up.
The truth has
finally sneaked into an obscure part of the media: In the summer of 2004,
Defense Paul Wolfowitz teased the media for being too frightened of the mess
has become to leave their bunkers and go
out and get more bogus stories about what a success
is! That was the last
straw, and the media (for once) showed some spunk. On June 29, 2004, on
the MSNBC Chris Mathews Show, Hardball, (Andrea Mitchell substitute
host), the media finally admitted that there had been a Battle of Baghdad.
Ms. Mitchell interviewed David
Zucchino, the Los Angeles Times reporter who was present at the battle with the 3rd Infantry
Division about his book Thunder Run, which gives a watered-down version of
the three-day battle.
Andrea Mitchell: “You write very
dramatically in this terrific book, ‘Thunder Run,” David, about the assault on
. It‘s not as
we saw it in real time on television, is it? There was a much grittier
story on the ground.”
Zucchino: “No, not at all. I think the impression that came
from those three days of combat was that the Iraqis rolled over, that there
wasn‘t much of a fight and the American forces just rolled into the city.
And it was anything but that. There was just some fierce, savage
fighting. There were thousands of, you know, Iraqis and Jordanians and
Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches. They
inflicted casualties. They caused a lot of problems for the armored
columns. And this was never reported … but it really was not an easy
victory at all.” [Full
transcript at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5343985 ]
Another example of a very delayed
acknowledge was the AP article "Soldiers Who Captured Baghdad Back for Round Two in Iraq,",
AP, Mar 5, 2005, by Chris Tomlinson. Commenting on the return of the Third Infantry Division to
in mid 2005, the article matter-of-factly stated
midway through: "The last time the 3rd Infantry was in
, it entered with overwhelming force,
fighting sustained urban combat from April 7-11, 2003. Their square patch with
diagonal stripes became known as `the Death Patch’ among Iraqis.”
Captain May also described the massive cover
Marines do you think had to die to take a city the size of
from “thousands of Iraqis and
Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and
Before you take a guess, bear in mind that in
any military operation, the defender has a considerable advantage – and that
advantage is greatest when he is defending a city. OK, now factor in the
average deaths per day in the three days before the Battle of Baghdad, when the
Bush media reported thirty-one dead GI’s (or ten per day).
How much higher was the number from
the Battle of Baghdad?
Before you guess, here’s a
professional analysis. A week before the battle began, by the way, US
retired general Barry McCaffrey estimated that an assault on Baghdad would cost
around 3,000 US casualties:
ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program
on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the
Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going
to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000
casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking
members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war. Article from March
24, 2003, http://www.eces.org/articles/000060.php).
Now go ahead and check the official
numbers for the three-day battle [http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uscasualties2.html].
The Bush media admits a total of thirteen deaths for in the period of April
5-7, 2003, when the young American soldiers and Marines fought and died in the
Battle of Baghdad. Welcome to the brave new world of Bush and his media,
liars extraordinaire, and traitors to the American People.