News Did the US Use White Phosphorus as a Weapon in Falluja?

[Burnsys]

Becouse the other forum was closed by evo saying we hadn't any proofs etc etc, i am starting a new one (i hope it won't be closed now.)
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
"Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians"
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."
Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's sayd "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
------------------------------------------------
Ok so all this confirms what art, me, skyhunter and others were saying in the previous thread bu was closed by Evo acusing us of crackpottery...

Closed Thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98952

 

[Andre]

It is said that they used gun powder too, to propel projectiles. Gun-powder can be hazardous if swallowed. But the worst chemical used on a large scale was di-hydrogen Mono Oxide. Very dangerous

So what is this, generating fallatic myths? Warfare is about persuading the enemy to comply with our politics, using well thought out strategy and tactics. And there is a new brigade on the battle fields, the legal advisors, making very sure that something is a legal target before shooting.

So attempting to discredit the actions by suggesting chemical warfare on citizens is, I think, more a crime in itself.

 

[Mercator]

And napalm too

Here is another link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1642575,00.html

And it's not only white phosphorus:

"While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene".
While kerosene is just another grade of petrol, mark 77 is just another grade of napalm.

And I agree with you that Evo arbitrarily closes threads for the sole reason that she either does not agree or does not understand the topic. Moreover she took one of my posts and quoted half of it, which took it out of context. Then she closed the thread. That is not done and cannot be tolerated from a "mentor". It should be taken serious by the administrators of this board if they don't want to loose credibility. What are the criteria to become a mentor anyway? It seems that the rules are up for a thorough revision. If this thread will get the same treatment, better start looking for another mentor. And/or other members.

 

[Burnsys]

It is said that they used gun powder too, to propel projectiles. Gun-powder can be hazardous if swallowed. But the worst chemical used on a large scale was di-hydrogen Mono Oxide. Very dangerous
So what is this, generating fallatic myths? Warfare is about persuading the enemy to comply with our politics, using well thought out strategy and tactics. And there is a new brigade on the battle fields, the legal advisors, making very sure that something is a legal target before shooting.
So attempting to discredit the actions by suggesting chemical warfare on citizens is, I think, more a crime in itself.

I hope you still think the same way if the police has to catch a criminal in the house next to yours and for doing that they burn the criminal house, and 10 houses around it, including yours with your family inside...

 

[Mercator]

It is said that they used gun powder too, to propel projectiles. Gun-powder can be hazardous if swallowed. But the worst chemical used on a large scale was di-hydrogen Mono Oxide. Very dangerous
So what is this, generating fallatic myths? Warfare is about persuading the enemy to comply with our politics, using well thought out strategy and tactics. And there is a new brigade on the battle fields, the legal advisors, making very sure that something is a legal target before shooting.
So attempting to discredit the actions by suggesting chemical warfare on citizens is, I think, more a crime in itself.

Trying to ridiculize the matter does not help. The chemicals, subject of this thread, are not allowed to be used on people, period. IF the US does not care about this, then be clear about it. If the US does not care about torturing people, then be clear about it. Then the rest of the world will know and draw it's conclusions.

 

[Mercator]

It seems in fact, we already got the answer:

The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.

Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.

Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html?oneclick=true
Hey, perhaps Saddam can use as defense that he never signed any agreement on the banning on torturing people or being a brutal dictator?

 

[Evo]

And I agree with you that Evo arbitrarily closes threads for the sole reason that she either does not agree or does not understand the topic.

Threads are rarely closed here, one look at this forum proves that. The other thread was locked because it was going nowhere, it was done in a tabloid fashion and assumptions were made that weren't proven. I had suggested a better way to discuss the accusations. I suggest you go back and read.

Moreover she took one of my posts and quoted half of it, which took it out of context. Then she closed the thread.

What post are you referring to? I didn't close the thread after a post of yours.

That is not done and cannot be tolerated from a "mentor".

Closing threads is at the mentor's discretion, I had a lot of support in doing so.

If you don't like the rules here, please feel free to excersize your right to stop posting here.

 

[Polly]

Thank you Burnsys and Mercator for clarifying. WP is too horrendous for me to even fathom. I mean if the US must kill at least have the decency to use something that inflicts less horror and pain. Have they lost their mind out of frustration with the insurgents or is it the kind of deterrent effect they were after? I do not know any more.

 

[Mercator]

I'm waiting for the US and it's army to resume it's role as a force for democracy and humanity. If the most powerful army in the world must use barbaric weapons, outlawed by the UN , then what to expect from the non-democratic forces? I think this is a topic worth of dicussion, whether some people feel uncomfortable with the topic or not.

 

[pattylou]

I didn't follow the other thread, but there are reputable (that is, they were not from tabloids) sources indicating that phosphorous was used asa weapon in Fallujah last year. I doubt civilians were specifically targeted, and this detail seems to be the defense that the pentagon is using. But, considering that Fallujah was mostly civilians (population 500,000) and that it was attacked because insurgents were creating a stronghold there, it seems very likely that civilians may have been hit by the phosphorous ('collateral damage.')

Also Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman acknowledged that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds in the battle of Fallujah a year ago. Lt. Col. Barry Venable denied an Italian TV news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

Use of white phosphorous is not banned but is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits use of the substance as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. The United States is not a signatory to the convention.

http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/front/story/2906638p-11566424c.html

All headlines:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=phosphorous+fallujah

I agree that the comparison to gunpowder is not helpful.

 

[kat]

outlawed by the UN , then what to expect from the non-democratic forces? I think this is a topic worth of dicussion, whether some people feel uncomfortable with the topic or not.

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.
Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

 

[Manchot]

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.
Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

You know what's funny? Legality is not morality.

 

[kat]

You know what's funny? Legality is not morality.

Even funnier is that obfuscation is not clarification but better defined as avoidance.

 

[pattylou]

There is a new article on google news that may pertain to this discussion. This does not touch on the "legality" angle but rather the "humanity" angle. Here's one excerpt:

What are its effects?

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.

Skin burns must be immersed in water or covered with wet cloths to prevent re-combustion until the particles can be removed.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Long-term exposure to lesser concentrations over several months or years may lead to a condition called "phossy jaw", where mouth wounds are caused that fail to heal and the jawbone eventually breaks down.

More Q&A:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

Some of the other questions deal more directly with the legality of the matter.

 

[Skyhunter]

Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm
No one is arguing the legality. In fact the US did not sign the convention. Since might makes right, it is perfectly legal and as you seem to be implying, also moral during the course of military action to melt the skin off of children!

 

[russ_watters]

Trying to ridiculize the matter does not help. The chemicals, subject of this thread, are not allowed to be used on people, period. IF the US does not care about this, then be clear about it. If the US does not care about torturing people, then be clear about it. Then the rest of the world will know and draw it's conclusions.

Where in the article does it say the WP was used to kill people? The only use against people mentioned was as a psychological weapon. You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP. That is not the case.

Guys (pretty much everyone in here), you need to start reading what these articles say, not what you want them to say.

 

[Evo]

melt the skin off of children!

It's this kind of thing I want to stop here. It is not being used for this intent as is pointed out (I think it's ridiculous that the guy even brought it up) and unless we stop this tabloid mentality we are not going to be able to have rational discussions. All this does is cause people to start throwing rocks and mud and I am really tired of it. The effects of WP are worthy of discussing without sensationalism thrown in. Let's keep the discussion on a higher level.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd also like to point out that because so much of politics is opinion, the requirements of this forum are significantly lower than the others when it comes to factual content. But there are limits and saying things that are straightforwardly factually wrong (whether intentional or not) is just not acceptable. This thread is just a repeat of the "shake vs bake" error of the previous one, and that error needs to be stopped.

The fact that WP is a weapon isn't now and never has been at issue here: it is a weapon and no one in this discussion is saying that it isn't. But calling something a "weapon" does not tell you how, exactly, it is used.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Where in the article does it say the WP was used to kill people? The only use against people mentioned was as a psychological weapon. You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP. That is not the case.
Guys (pretty much everyone in here), you need to start reading what these articles say, not what you want them to say.

First off, it's use is frowned on as any kind of weapon, psychologically or otherwise. Secondly, Col Venable referred to it as a "conventional munition", not a "psychological weapon". Thirdly, it was used to drive people out of 'holes', and so was aimed at people. No-one is saying it was used for the purpose of killing people, but it does kill and it was used on people, and was done so knowing the effects WP has. You were banging on in another thread about Clinton not calling the Rwanda situation genocide so that he did not have to get involved. Seems hypocritical now to argue that since no-one has admitted using it explicitly to kill people then it makes no difference if it does.

 

[Burnsys]

Where in the article does it say the WP was used to kill people?

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

The only use against people mentioned was as a psychological weapon.

Lt Col Barry Venable said earlier denials had been based on "poor information".

So it wasn't used only for iluminating and smoke!

You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP. That is not the case.

Intentionally burning enemy combatants to death? 100% sure, burning civilians who are close to the enemy combatants very plausible..

Guys (pretty much everyone in here), you need to start reading what these articles say, not what you want them to say.

Actualy russ you are the one who must start reading...

melt the skin off of children!

It's this kind of thing I want to stop here. It is not being used for this intent as is pointed out (I think it's ridiculous that the guy even brought it up) and unless we stop this tabloid mentality we are not going to be able to have rational discussions.

Ok, i would like some of you two to present some proff, valid and factual argument, somenthing, and not only rethoric...

Prove wrong some of this arguments:

1-WP melt the skin off of children
2-Lt Col Barry Venable sayd: US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants"
3-There are lot's of pictures of people (including childrens) totaly burned..


It doesn't matter what the intents are, all that matters are the results. so stop with that atitute..

I you don't want to see reality, please close your eyes, but don't force us to close ours..

 

[Manchot]

Even funnier is that obfuscation is not clarification but better defined as avoidance.

In what way was what I said obfuscation? You were making the claim that the use of WP is not illegal, and by implication, that there is nothing wrong with it. I was stating that just because something's not illegal, it doesn't make it right.

 

[pattylou]

You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP.

I don't see anyone saying anything remotely like that in the contributions here. It is abhorrent that our military uses a chemical which may accidentally cause skin, lungs, and other tissue to burn essentially uncontrollably, if it lands "in the wrong place."

Guys (pretty much everyone in here), you need to start reading what these articles say, not what you want them to say.

You need to start reading what the posters are saying, not what you want them to say.

 

[Informal Logic]

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm
No one is arguing the legality. In fact the US did not sign the convention. Since might makes right, it is perfectly legal and as you seem to be implying, also moral during the course of military action to melt the skin off of children!

Only when used in an Arab country. If this happened in Israel...well, that would be different.

 

[Andre]

How about the CNN-effect.

In the early days, war was something of soldiers. If you had a trick to defeat the enemy you would do it.

Golf war one changed all that, war had become real time reality TV, not only big brother but people all over the world were watching. The effect was well known by military policy makers and the most hot item became the acceptability of warfare to the modern world. The fear of the intorability of body bags and the excesses of use of force. Number one rule is: no collateral damage, number two rule is absolutely no collateral damage, finally rule 10: try to win the war.

Military policy makers are most terrified for exactly this kind of alleged excesses and in the CNN reality TV world there is no chance whatsoever of a cover up.

Of course there is always a risk of individual warriors flipping, commiting crimes and of course this should be dealt with but it's rather naive to assume that the modern military organisation would even remotely consider to adapt or approve illegal warfare methods. As I said earlier, there is a new brigade out there in the field, the legal advisors, carefully judging whether or not targets and warfare is legal.

But the hearsay and the strong stories in the press hardly constitute any evidence of excesses. Do they?

 

[russ_watters]

First off, it's use is frowned on as any kind of weapon, psychologically or otherwise.

Frowned upon by whom?

Secondly, Col Venable referred to it as a "conventional munition", not a "psychological weapon".

Again, so what? That nitpicking over terminology doesn't change how it was actually used. I even suspect some answers given to questions about WP were factually inaccurate because the questions were dishonest and rather than try to argue against the question, they tried to give answers.

Thirdly, it was used to drive people out of 'holes', and so was aimed at people.

Well, kinda, but close enough.

No-one is saying it was used for the purpose of killing people

Au contraire. While some are not explicit, some - most importantly the person who started this thread - are explicit that they believe that the US is intentionally killing peope with WP. So you (and patty, and others) need to be more precise in your statements of your opinions because you have not, until now, made that distinction clear.

Burnsys started this thread, so by arguing for his position without making it clear that you don't share his opinion, it is your fault if your opinion is misunderstood.

...but it does kill and it was used on people, and was done so knowing the effects WP has.

"on people" is somewhat vague, but yes - it was used with very little regard to whether it was killing combatants or just scaring them out of foxholes for bullets and high explosive rounds to kill them.

You were banging on in another thread about Clinton not calling the Rwanda situation genocide so that he did not have to get involved. Seems hypocritical now to argue that since no-one has admitted using it explicitly to kill people then it makes no difference if it does.

It makes a big difference, under the law, what the intent was. The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue! This issue was first brought up as an accusation of a war crime, and for a controlled-use weapon, intent matters.

Just so everyone else is crystal clear on what side you are arguing, this is what Burnsys is arguing, and if you don't agree, you need to say so before arguing on his behalf:

Intentionally burning enemy combatants to death? 100% sure, burning civilians who are close to the enemy combatants very plausible..

To paraphrase, Burnsys believes that the US is intentionally killing enemy combatants with WP and may be intentionally killing civilians with it.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

Yes, Burnsys, and you are reading something that isn't there. It matters that it was used "as an incendiary [psychological] weapon against enemy combatants" - and it does specify that that was it's use.

No one is arguing the legality.

Yes, people are arguing the legality! Did you even read the OP of this thread? - it's all about the legal ramifications! You, yourself inadvertently did so in your OP of the previous thread! (by stating that it was a chemical weapon) That it was inadvertent doesn't change the fact that you said it and people responded to it, and several people agreed to it. Further, those who argue that WP is being intentionally used to kill enemy combatants are arguing that the US committed an illegal act.

Yes, Skyhunter, I recognize that the primary purpose for many here is to hightlight that war is hell and use that as a basis for random USA bashing (after all - how much worse is being burned to death by WP than, say, burning alive in your shot-up truck?), but there are some specific legal issues to be discussed here. Just to be clear - I am only concerned with the specific legal issues - the random rhetoric of war-is-hell-so-USA-sucks, you guys can have. But when you start in with the rhetoric on an issue that does have some factual points to it, that's when we have the problem. Several of you guys - I'm not even sure you read Burnsys's post before posting your USA-bashes.

This is how conspiracy theories start guys - don't you see how easily this discussion gets to the assertion that the USA is using chemical weapons and is committing a war crime in Iraq? Heck, it was in the title of the OP and the link in the previous thread!

 

[pattylou]

Becouse the other forum was closed by evo saying we hadn't any proofs etc etc, i am starting a new one (i hope it won't be closed now.)
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
"Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians"
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."
Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's sayd "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
------------------------------------------------
Ok so all this confirms what art, me, skyhunter and others were saying in the previous thread bu was closed by Evo acusing us of crackpottery...
Closed Thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98952

Russ, without having read the earlier thread, and not really inclined to do so as this is a *new* thread based on reports yesterday, I must say: I don't see anything in the original post (quote above) that says what you say in your latest contribution on this thread:

most importantly the person who started this thread - are explicit that they believe that the US is intentionally killing peope with WP. So you (and patty, and others) need to be more precise in your statements of your opinions because you have not, until now, made that distinction clear.

Also, you say there that my opinion isn't clear. Here is my most recent contribution on this thread:

It is abhorrent that our military uses a chemical which may accidentally cause skin, lungs, and other tissue to burn essentially uncontrollably, if it lands "in the wrong place."

How on Earth can you say I don't make my position clear?

You seem to have a habit of stating as fact things that are incorrect, such as your characterization of my contributions, above. You also assume that you know what people are thinking. It is unreasonable to expect every poster to lay out the detailed miniutiae of their position on each thread. I certainly don't ask that of you - nor am I asking you to acknowledge that your post earlier in the thread ("You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP") is a gross distortion of what has been said here.

But it is.

Finally. of course war is hell. We all know that. It is a good idea to illutstrate the horrors of war as they become evident, and the use of WP qualifies.

Would you prefer that we didn't know items like: the death toll in Iraq? that our military was abusing detainees? the suicide rates (etc) among soldiers returning home? Cindy Sheehan's story?

These are all parts of the "hell" that we have created. Imagine for a minute that we didn't know any of it. Are you saying that such a scenario would be better? Who, in your opinion, should be privy to such information? Just the military? the president? The senate and house? Anyone else?

Perhaps we should only be told the "happy" stories from Iraq, like Saddam's capture?

Into which few people's hands, would you like to put the running of this country?

Do you believe in the ideals of democracy? Do you believe that knowledge is a good thing?

 

[Mercator]

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.
Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

Read the links. If you want to discuss the UN protocol, please go ahead and start your own thread. Good try though.

 

[FredGarvin]

It is abhorrent that our military uses a chemical which may accidentally cause skin, lungs, and other tissue to burn essentially uncontrollably, if it lands "in the wrong place."

Most weapons of war will do that. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any weapon, where, if it falls in the wrong spot, magically turns itself off.

 

[pattylou]

Most weapons of war will do that. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any weapon, where, if it falls in the wrong spot, magically turns itself off.

That's a bit of a distortion. But going with that logic, then any weapon not yet conceived is also "OK." Any weapon, that causes any amount of damage, is OK - because we can't think in terms of grey, we're incapable of it. We can't draw lines, we're too dumb. We need things in black and white. Therefore, nuclear bombs that wipe out a city are no worse than switchblades. If we legalize the use of nuclear bombs, we can feel completely comfortable using them - because they're just like every other weapon.

If you feel I am distorting your contribution, then I suggest you look at what you did to mine. I happen to think you are smart enough and capable enough to appreciate the distinctions between an aimed gun and a powder that can become airborne and ignite virtually anything it lands on.

 

[Mercator]

I'm waiting for the US and it's army to resume it's role as a force for democracy and humanity. If the most powerful army in the world must use barbaric weapons, outlawed by the UN , then what to expect from the non-democratic forces? I think this is a topic worth of dicussion, whether some people feel uncomfortable with the topic or not.

The implication of this thread is exactly what I wrote above. So I am still waiting for somebody with enough courage to adress the question.
A related question is: does the mere fact that something is allowed by a national government makes it legal to use in another country, even against the resolutions of the world (i.o.w. the UN)?
Maybe some here are not impressed by the effects of these chemicals and have a more selective offense against decapitations. But the political consequences of their selective outrage could be enormous. And I come back here to the question that a certain mentor came to manipulate so expertly: who is going to condemn brutal, sadistic, inhuman, terrible, illegal, disgusting dictators (just to make sure that Evo gets it this time) like Saddam for using "tactics" on his enemies if "the good guys" do just the same?
Does anyone have the illusion that the people in Iraq and in Fallujah for the next generations to come will make any distinction between the horrors of being sprayed with Sulphuric acid or being attacked with 77?
You can hide behind the "intent" and "we did not sign the paper" arguments, but is it so difficult to see the consequences of this behaviour? Even if you're a right wing tough cookie with two brains (instead of a heart and a brain) it should be obvious that this "we can do it, who can stop us? " mentality can only lead to more confrontation and much worse: sympathy for the wrong guys.
Nobody I know sympathises with terrorists, islamic extremists, suicide bombers etc..., but you make it very difficult for many people, even the ones, like me with originally a very hard positions against these terrorists and such. Again, I wish some day we can count on the US again.

 

[Mercator]

I think that some people think: "hey war is hell, so if you're the good guy, why should you be forbidden to use this or that weapon".
Well, the world is trying to get rid of dictators and their barbaric methods and (anybody who raised kids wiil know) a first step is to give the good example.

 

[Evo]

And I come back here to the question that a certain mentor came to manipulate so expertly: who is going to condemn brutal, sadistic, inhuman, terrible, illegal, disgusting dictators (just to make sure that Evo gets it this time) like Saddam for using "tactics" on his enemies if "the good guys" do just the same?

No, here is your entire post

I have been out of this discussion because in my view, it's a side issue. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong period. But when TSM sent me this link, I looked at it and recalled my disgust about one of Saddam's experiments: upon his orders they once sprayed a crowd of Kurds with Sulphuric acid from a helicopter. Now I've got experience with H2SO4 in bulk and t's one of the nastiests stuffs I've seen. So I was appalled by this news. And now I see this and I ask myself, what is the difference? I don't want to read academic discussions here about the difference beween allowed and not allowed substances. I just want to ask how ANYBODY can justify the use of anything that does THIS to a human body.And anybody who even tries to do so is no different from Saddam H. , who after all, just tried to protect himself and , like the US POTUS warlord, thought that all means were justified.

To which I asked

Saddam "just tried to protect himself"? Are you serious?

Just to make sure that "you get it" this time. No wonder most of the people here call the P&WA forum the "PF whine cellar".

 

[Art]

So to recap on this subject - Certain members here first argued that the US didn't use WP in Fallujah because the pentagon said so.

Next they believed that WP was used as an illuminant only, because the pentagon retracting it's earlier denial said so.

Then they believed it was only used to create a smokscreen because the pentagon retracting it's earlier correction to it's earlier denial said so.

They then quoted the latest piece from the pentagon which retracted it's retraction to it's earlier retraction and said it was used as a psychological tool.

Now the pentagon has corrected their retraction to the retracted statement which retracted their previous statement which retracted their first statement and admitted it was used as an incendiary weapon.

The same certain members now say "so what it's not illegal under USA law" and why do they defend the indefensible from this shaky standpoint? oh yes because the pentagon says so.

Such blind naivete on a science forum is breathtaking.

 

[Art]

Threads are rarely closed here, one look at this forum proves that. The other thread was locked because it was going nowhere, it was done in a tabloid fashion and assumptions were made that weren't proven. I had suggested a better way to discuss the accusations. I suggest you go back and read.
What post are you referring to? I didn't close the thread after a post of yours.

No you actually closed it after a post of mine claiming my statement 'that even the battalion doctor joined in the fun dropping HE and WP shells on Fallujah' was ridiculous; I provided the proof which you were good enough to append to the locked thread but you didn't reopen the thread whilst I imagine many people here would have liked to comment on that piece.

Closing threads is at the mentor's discretion, I had a lot of support in doing so.
If you don't like the rules here, please feel free to excersize your right to stop posting here.

The support for closing the thread wouldn't have come from the same people who have now been proven wrong with their assertion that "WP was not used as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah" would it?

Perhaps questioning gov't official lines (or lies) should be something a political forum should encourage rather than censor.

 

[Mercator]

No, here is your entire postTo which I askedJust to make sure that "you get it" this time. No wonder most of the people here call the P&WA forum the "PF whine cellar".

Thanks for bringing it out in the open. Just quoting that "Saddam only tried to protect himself" without the "and thought all means were justified" is just manipulation. YES OF COURSE SADDAM WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF, AND HIS POSITION, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A DICTATOR? The point was, and is (sorry for the better understanders here that I have to repeat this over and over) that we expect from the POTUS that he agrees that NOT all means are justified. Can I ask you now, as a "mentor" to stop the personal issues and either adress the topic that the majority here wants to discuss OR keep your head in the sand (I will not use the ostrich metaphor here, because that also seems to be unacceptable for some of the selectively sensitive on this board) and leave the discussion to others?

 

[Mercator]

This is how conspiracy theories start guys - don't you see how easily this discussion gets to the assertion that the USA is using chemical weapons and is committing a war crime in Iraq? Heck, it was in the title of the OP and the link in the previous thread!

This speaks for itself. We should not discuss this boys, because it could lead to an assertion that we don't like.
Sorry Russ, it will lead to what it leads. And let's not forget that we are only "whining" here. The real debate is out there in the mainstream news. You can try to hide it under the carpet of this forum, but in the real world it IS an issue.

 

[Art]

No wonder most of the people here call the P&WA forum the "PF whine cellar".

This is a rather nasty, derogatory ad-hominem attack on all of us who post in this forum? BTW How does this relate to the OP?

 

[Evo]

Thanks for bringing it out in the open. Just quoting that "Saddam only tried to protect himself" without the "and thought all means were justified" is just manipulation. YES OF COURSE SADDAM WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF, AND HIS POSITION, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A DICTATOR? The point was, and is (sorry for the better understanders here that I have to repeat this over and over) that we expect from the POTUS that he agrees that NOT all means are justified. Can I ask you now, as a "mentor" to stop the personal issues and either adress the topic that the majority here wants to discuss OR keep your head in the sand (I will not use the ostrich metaphor here, because that also seems to be unacceptable for some of the selectively sensitive on this board) and leave the discussion to others?

I don't know what kind of analogy you intended, but it failed.

Read this article and tell me how his hunting down and killing thousands of his own people can be used in your comparison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

 

[Evo]

This is a rather nasty, derogatory ad-hominem attack on all of us who post in this forum? BTW How does this relate to the OP?

It's not directed at anyone in particular but at the level that discussions here have fallen to overall. In case you forgot, not only do I post here, but I am responsible for the direction and quality of the forum, if it's directed at anyone, it's directed at me for allowing things to degrade to this point. I have been asking to raise the quality of discussions here. I intend to make this a better quality forum which more people will feel comfortable joining.

 

[Evo]

No you actually closed it after a post of mine claiming my statement 'that even the battalion doctor joined in the fun dropping HE and WP shells on Fallujah. was ridiculous; I provided the proof which you were good enough to append to the locked thread but you didn't reopen the thread whilst I imagine many people here would have liked to comment on that piece.

I posted your response after the thread closed and said you were right it happened, but reading the entire piece it was evident that this was a tasteless photo op long after the initial battle.

The support for closing the thread wouldn't have come from the same people who have now been proven wrong with their assertion that "WP was not used as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah" would it?

It was a mix, incase you haven't noticed, there are a select few that post here in P&WA. Many more read than post.

If you want to open a thread about the tasteless things that people in the military do, go ahead. Just try not to look like a tabloid article. I'm trying to get people to stop being drama queens and start raising questions in a manner conducive to intelligent discussion. All I've seen the last few months is tabloid headlines, with gangs forming on either side and yelling at each other and throwing rocks. I have taken the feedback from a number of observers and agree we need to raise the bar here.

 

[Art]

This speaks for itself. We should not discuss this boys, because it could lead to an assertion that we don't like.
Sorry Russ, it will lead to what it leads. And let's not forget that we are only "whining" here. The real debate is out there in the mainstream news. You can try to hide it under the carpet of this forum, but in the real world it IS an issue.

Even the BBC is involved in this 'conspiracy'

The UK Ministry of Defence said its use was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told the BBC: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4442156.stm

 

[loseyourname]

If you feel I am distorting your contribution, then I suggest you look at what you did to mine. I happen to think you are smart enough and capable enough to appreciate the distinctions between an aimed gun and a powder that can become airborne and ignite virtually anything it lands on.

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.

Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

 

[Art]

I posted your response after the thread closed and said you were right it happened, but reading the entire piece it was evident that this was a tasteless photo op long after the initial battle.

Read it again, this was actually done in the softening up phase before the battle proper had even started.

It was a mix, incase you haven't noticed, there is a select few that post here in P&WA. Many more read than post.
If you want to open a thread about the tasteless things that people in the military do, go ahead. Just try not to look like a tabloid article. I'm trying to get people to stop being drama queens and start raising questions in a manner conducive to intelligent discussion. All I've seen the last few months is tabloid headlines, with gangs forming on either side and yelling at each other and throwing rocks. I have taken the feedback from a number of observers and agree we need to raise the bar here.

The problem I see is issues are raised and instead of discussing the issue many of us have to defend the fact that the issue exists!
Now if you can prevent this obstruction to sensible debate from the far-right or overly nationalistic amongst us I'm sure the quality of the threads will improve.

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.

for example

 

[Art]

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.
Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

The UN certainly thinks so and I thought the US did too. I seem to remember back in the distant past that Saddam's possesion of UN banned weapons was at one time the reason given by the US for the invasion of Iraq.
With regard to this particular issue there is a huge difference between a well aimed shot at an insurgent and the use of an indiscriminate weapon in a civilian area. The first is war the second is mass murder.

p.s. As you can see Evo I am now having to argue that this even is an issue.

 

[Burnsys]

That nitpicking over terminology doesn't change how it was actually used.

Right, also doesn't change the result that was childrens with their skins melted.

The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue!

Maybe you are discusing the legal definitions, becouse it's the only way the bush administration and you can get away with it, it's mk77 not napalm!

I will repeat again:

It doesn't matter what the intents are, all that matters are the results. so stop with that atitute..

This issue was first brought up as an accusation of a war crime, and for a controlled-use weapon, intent matters.

The end doesn't justify the means.
(no wonder that the motives are Highly cuestioned)

Just so everyone else is crystal clear on what side you are arguing, this is what Burnsys is arguing, and if you don't agree, you need to say so before arguing on his behalf: To paraphrase, Burnsys believes that the US is intentionally killing enemy combatants with WP and may be intentionally killing civilians with it.

I believe that US is using WP to kill insurgents as a "colateral damage" (The way you like to name it) is burning alive civilians and childrens.

Yes, Burnsys, and you are reading something that isn't there. It matters that it was used "as an incendiary [psychological] weapon against enemy combatants" - and it does specify that that was it's use.

I can imagine, seeing this:
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
has a very strong phsychological impact.. We could we say it's a very efective way to TERRORIZE a whole population..

Yes

, people are arguing the legality! Did you even read the OP of this thread? - it's all about the legal ramifications! You, yourself inadvertently did so in your OP of the previous thread! (by stating that it was a chemical weapon) That it was inadvertent doesn't change the fact that you said it and people responded to it, and several people agreed to it

The fact that it's legal doesn't change the fact that civilians and childrens are being burned alive.

. Further, those who argue that WP is being intentionally used to kill enemy combatants are arguing that the US committed an illegal act.

Stope guesing what other people are arguing, just read the post literaly and not making strawmen.

Yes, Skyhunter, I recognize that the primary purpose for many here is to hightlight that war is hell and use that as a basis for random USA bashing

It's not random, it's well founded and very specific.

(after all - how much worse is being burned to death by WP than, say, burning alive in your shot-up truck?),

You are right! especialy when you bomb a Truck caravan of civilians beliving saddam houseing was in one of the trucks.

Just to be clear - I am only concerned with the specific legal issues

of course, it's the only way you can justify so horrible atrocities.
So the The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.. I wonder why.

But when you start in with the rhetoric on an issue that does have some factual points to it, that's when we have the problem.

There isn't even 1 fact in all your posts!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No you actually closed it after a post of mine claiming my statement 'that even the battalion doctor joined in the fun dropping HE and WP shells on Fallujah. was ridiculous; I provided the proof which you were good enough to append to the locked thread but you didn't reopen the thread whilst I imagine many people here would have liked to comment on that piece.
The support for closing the thread wouldn't have come from the same people who have now been proven wrong with their assertion that "WP was not used as an incendiary weapon in Fallujah" would it?

The article in the OP only adresses one of the objections that we had about your claims; that WP was fired at targets. We, or at least I, asked for the proof that it was fired at targets. Now you have proof of at least this. The problem is that we already knew and agreed that WP smoke was used against the combatents. Smoke bombs are incediaries in that they burn in order to create smoke. Anything that burns is classified as an incendiary. Anything that produces smoke most likely burns and therefore is an incendiary. Our point is whether or not the devices used were designed to burn their targets really. We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.

The other point of contention was the effect on the civilian population. I believe we all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP so extensively was unacceptable. The only point which most of us took issue with was here...

...the US thugs who entered Fallujah deliberately killed civilians and those who fired ordinance in from the outside didn't give a **** who they killed.

The idea that US forces intentionally targeted and intentionally killed civilians and did not care if they killed civilains.
All else aside I don't doubt that this was the major bone anyone had to pick with what you had to say.

 

[Evo]

Read it again, this was actually done in the softening up phase before the battle proper had even started.

I will reread it to see when it took place. If it happened afterwards, you have to buy me dinner.

The problem I see is issues are raised and instead of discussing the issue many of us have to defend the fact that the issue exists!

That's because of how the issue is raised, that's what I am trying to improve.

Now if you can prevent this obstruction to sensible debate from the far-right or overly nationalistic amongst us I'm sure the quality of the threads will improve.

(None of the following is about you, btw.) It's not the issues, but how they are presented. "BUSH BURNS BABIES!" is not the way to start a topic or present an issue. All it does is form dividing lines and the rocks and mud start flying and nothing is accomplished. It's just a bunch of bickering. People's defenses go up, if you had any intention of getting through to someone that doesn't think like you, you blew it.

This has got to stop.

 

[Mercator]

Not that I advocate the use of incendiary weapons for anything other than clearing foliage, but I can understand what Fred is saying. Is being shredded to pieces by hundreds of flying shards of jagged metal from a traditional bomb really much better than being burned alive by flammable gels and gases from an incendiary bomb? Both test the limits of the human pain threshold if they don't kill you.
Anyway, before someone jumps on me for being such a USA homer, I'm not commenting either way on the legality or morality of these actions. This is just a quick quip. Feel free to ignore it.

I agree that there are many terrible methods to kill people. The banning of some weapons may be arbitrary and more based on emotions than on scientific facts. Yet there is no protest if the Saudis decapitate opponents, but there is a (justified) outcry when Saddam uses Sulphuric acid to spary on his opponents. The method DOES count.
Again, the core of the matter discussed here, is why the US thinks it is ok to ignore this: Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
And then Americans whine about the UN being powerless??

 

[loseyourname]

The UN certainly thinks so and I thought the US did too. I seem to remember back in the distant past that Saddam's possesion of UN banned weapons was at one time the reason given by the US for the invasion of Iraq.
With regard to this particular issue there is a huge difference between a well aimed shot at an insurgent and the use of an indiscriminate weapon in a civilian area. The first is war the second is mass murder.
p.s. As you can see Evo I am now having to argue that this even is an issue.

Actually, you're ignoring the last part of my post specifically saying that I was in no way trying to comment on whether or not this is or should be an issue. In fact, I put in this disclaimer in large part because I had a feeling that you, specifically, would jump on me for it. It seems you've lumped me into this naive, blind, nationalist conspiracy and automatically interpret everything I say as a defense of US policy. For the most part, I hate US policy, though I don't comment much on the things brought up in this forum because I'm more concerned with local and domestic events than international.

 

[loseyourname]

Again, the core of the matter discussed here, is why the US thinks it is ok to ignore this: Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
And then Americans whine about the UN being powerless??

Well, there is the obvious out that the US is not making civilian populations the object of attack. That's contingent upon the word 'attack' excluding accidental damage, but still, it does do so. Then again, as you've pointed out, the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right. Obviously, the spirit of this law is to shield civilians from having to suffer the effects of these weapons.