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

[Bystander]

(snip). ... we live on a planet with oxygen in abundance and plenty of moisture available in IMH layman's O it would seem to me the oxidisation step would take place quite readily

The moisture is irrelevant to the oxidation. The "ready" oxidation is the property that makes phosphorus useful as an incendiary.

and somehow I doubt WP takes as long to 'rust' as oh, say iron.

The kinetics of the reaction are a function of surface area. Run down to the hardware store and buy yourself a small package of "four ought" steel wool (used for hand rubbing steps in furniture finishing); take it outdoors on a windless day, prop it, sans wrapper, off the ground by sticking 3 toothpicks in it as a tripod, and touch a match to it (you might want to use pliers or an extension to hold the match). Please don't do the experiment near (say 2 - 3 meters) anything you don't wish to set on fire --- guess that means wear old clothes.
White phosphorus when expelled from shells by the bursting charge may be in either the liquid or solid phase (function of storage temperature, cold gun, hot gun firing conditions, time of flight (heating from atmospheric drag)). If liquid, it will be in a spray of droplets having some size distribution that's no doubt been studied. Anything over a few mm is going to be broken up by aerodynamic braking forces as it moves toward the limit of the burst radius. If solid, ignition might be delayed by ms while aerodynamic drag and autooxidation eats the fragments to the ignition temperature, at which time the heat evolved melts the interiors of the solid fragments rapidly; and, we're back to liquid droplets. The droplets ignite quickly, and the combustion proceeds at a rate determined by diffusion of oxygen to the droplet, and diffusion of phosphorus pentoxide vapor away from the droplet --- in terms of droplet radius, 10s, maybe 100s of μm/s. A mm droplet is going to burn for 10 s to a minute, so long as elemental oxygen is available. The reaction with atmospheric moisture takes place within several cm of the drop as the vapor cools below 200 C, or thereabouts. This is the white smoke cloud, an aerosol of micron to submicron metaphosphoric acid particles scattering light.
The difference between the combustion of the steel wool and phosphorus is that the products from the steel are solid, even at the combustion temperature, allowing freer diffusion of oxygen to the fuel, whereas for the phosphorus, the phosphorus pentoxide product is in the vapor phase at the combustion temperature and in expanding away from the droplet hindering diffusion transport of oxygen.

In fact to the person affected the temporal element of the transitional phase

It's the oxidation step --- call it the oxidation step.

would probably not even be observable

This is the most observable effect to the victim, getting a hole burned into your hide with not a red hot, but a white hot poker. Does get one's attention. The ten seconds to minute burning time for the mm droplet is increased by the fact that oxygen transport is blocked by the victim's flesh except for one side. Gives a sputtering effect --- as things cool, more oxygen moves in, heats up, blowing phosphorus pentoxide out, cools, ...

assuming somebody who's skin is melting is objective enough to care about such details. (snip)
BTW could the effect of WP (or it's oxide) reacting with and dissolving in fatty tissue be likened to melting by a non-chemist observer?

Elemental phosphorus is lipid soluble. The metaphosphoric acid is not. You have the mm droplet of elemental phosphorus sputtering at the bottom of a dime size, dime diameter deep hole in your arm, back, leg, whatever --- it's hot, and percolating through char, destroyed tissue, and damaged tissue to tissue that is still live. If the live tissue adjacent to the wound includes fatty tissue, elemental phosphorus, will dissolve in it. If you wish to call the dissolution process a reaction, yes, there is a reaction. If you are asking if there is a chemical reaction, no, there is not. The metaphosphoric acid being produced by combustion of the droplet in the wound may be coagulating (denaturing) proteins in the wound, but they were already cooked.
"Melting?" No. Not in any sense that a chemist uses the word.
Fatty tissues being fatty tissues, fat soluble materials remain in the body for long time spans; in the case of elemental phosphorus, there are a number of slow chemical reactions possible, none of which are desirable. Fatty tissues are not well aerated; there may be slow production of diphosphorus tetroxide, P₂O₄, which hydrolyzes to phosphorous acid, which is toxic. It's conceivable that phosphine is produced, PH₃, also toxic.
Incomplete debridement of affected tissues from phosphorus burns can leave phosphorus in tissues; delay in treatment of wounds can allow phosphorus in fatty tissues to diffuse over a larger area surrounding the wound. Either event leaves the victim chronically poisoned. Over time this leads to fossy jaw, and whatever other occupational diseases were observed in matchmakers --- no, not Tevi, them little sticks pyromaniacs love. Does the medical profession actually know how to treat phosphorus burns? In principle, yes. In practice, I haven't seen studies of "diffusion rates of elemental phosphorus in fatty tissues," in the literature --- haven't looked, but that's one that would have caught my eye in the chemical literature.
At any rate, this is the "humanitarian" reason behind international discussions on use of phosphorus in an antipersonnel role, not "melting" people.

Just another thought; seeing as how per your mail above burning WP generates a temp of 2000 C and bearing in mind steel melts at ~1300 C isn't it likely that this would create self supporting combustion of the fatty body tissues should burning WP come into contact with skin?

Experiment(s) were done in the concentration camps during WW II for "disposal" purposes with the intent of finding conditions under which "self-supporting combustion" could be achieved. Various stacking arrangements were tried, and the bottom line is that there is insufficient heat transported downward from the flame and exhaust gases of such a fire to vaporize the combustibles at the rate necessary to support sustained combustion.
Getting back to the current discussion, the tissues in the immediate wound area do vaporize and combust, but the heat necessary for the vaporization is coming from the phosphorus combustion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Bystander, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that WP is not likely to cause much damage and is not very likely to result in death? Or are you simply pointing out that it is not very reliable in regards to use as a weapon directed at a target?

I think that we would have to agree that these WP smoke munitions, regardless of how effective as a direct weapon, can result in collateral casualties.
Mostly the effect that has been focused on here and in news articles is the burning but the smoke is definitely toxic. If the smoke got into a building or room and the occupants were afraid to exit the building they may have allowed themselves to be suffocated and killed. I remember someone mentioning ashen gray bodies without burn marks on them. I wonder how many of the civilian casualties were simply smothered.

 

[Art]

Although originally my argument against the use of WP as a weapon was based on the morality of the issue rather than the legality it seems it might very well be illegal (even in the US) too.
It certainly appears the US army deems the firing of WP at human beings to be illegal.

The ST100-3 Battle Book published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth in July 1999, notes in chapter 5: "Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

And here is a well thought out argument as to why the way WP was used in Falluja causes it to fall into the category of chemical weapons.

CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties
<snip> Under this [Chemical Weapons] Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/10/84846/024
The full article is worth a read. Although some here have maintained the US have done nothing illegal becuse they didn't sign Protocol 111 it's conclusion is that the US are in breach of conventions they have signed.

 

[Art]

Every one of my posts about the quality here has stated that it is NOT the issues posted, but HOW they are posted. Huge difference. There is an intelligent, mature way to approach a subject, then there is a tabloid way of approaching a subject. No more tabloid posts here.

I and I'm sure all others would agree with this in principle but unfortunately if you look back with an open mind I think you will find it is often the super mentors who are the worst culprits. Here is a quintessential example of what I mean.
To begin bear in mind my earlier reference to the BBC crediting the unearthing of the article in the army's Field Artillary magazine with the about face by the pentagon on it's use of WP and now look at what happened when Burnsys cited it

From Russ-

No. Reread the quotes you just posted. They do not say that the WP was used to kill people.

From you -

For example Burnsys misunderstanding why WP is classified as a munition.

From you

Read this again. First of all it says "We used improved WP for screening missions " then "and saved our WP for lethal missions", well which was it? And by saving WP for their "lethal missions" only means they used the properties of WP (smoke, illumination) to help them when they were on critical missions. No where does it say that WP was used to kill anyone.
If people here can't stick to what is written without making up outlandish scenarios, I will lock the thread. Stick to the facts, please.

(BTW fyi 'improved WP' is actually a different munition to WP) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/AMMO972/sld035.htm

From Russ

In both cases, it was talking about WP (just different kinds), and in both cases, the use was for creating smoke, not to kill people.
Read it again: the WP shakes, the HE (high-explosive) bakes. The high explosive, not the wp, was used to kill people.
Screening and scaring. That's it. No killing.

As you can see some members (including yourself) were aggressively defending the pentagon's stated position at that time (illumination and screening) and claiming that Burnsys was, quote "making up outlandish scenarios".
Since then on the basis of the exact section of the article Burnsys quoted and his precise interpretation the pentagon has been forced to issue a retraction and admit they did use WP as an anti-personnel weapon. The international media has also taken it up and it has created a storm of controversy.
The point being Burnsys was right about the validity of his referenced article and right about it's meaning. He was attacked without any facts or sources being quoted, purely on the basis of personal opinion (and wishful thinking) and this by the people complaining about the quality of debate on this forum.

From your mail above and your comments related to Burnsys' post it would appear that in the future posts such as his will be deleted based on a subjective opinion of what is
credible / sensationalist and what is not. In this particular case what proved to be the final nail in the pentagon's coffin would have been lost to the members here.

Perhaps rather than censor posts a viable alternative would be to create a sub-forum in the PWA area to host the more controversial threads so those who like their politics flavoured vanilla can enjoy the PWA forum without tripping over threads that offend them?? It might also be interesting to see which area attracts the most members.

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that WP is not likely to cause much damage and is not very likely to result in death? Or are you simply pointing out that it is not very reliable in regards to use as a weapon directed at a target?

Glimmers of understanding?
Damage: as a marker round, near zero; as a smoke round, near zero; as an incendiary device used against a non-flammable target, near zero; as an incendiary device used against a flammable target, high.
Probability of fatalities: marker over a "personnel" target, high; marker over an unpopulated/unstaffed target, near zero; smoke covering disengagement, low; smoke covering a "move in for the kill," who knows, "they" can use it to bail out; incendiary against a highly flammable or explosive target, again depends on who's nearby or not.
Reliability: it goes where you send it and does what phosphorus does when it gets there --- that's "reliable."
As an anti-personnel weapon? I abhor analogies. I particularly abhor bad analogies. That said, I'm reduced to constructing a bad analogy: "It's a little like the opening phase of a bullfight, jabbing the animal with banderillas to irritate him." Difference being that the animal wasn't looking for a fight, as opposed to an armed conflict situation,. Dependence upon phosphorus ("the banderillas") to kill the opposing force leaves the matador using his bare hands rather than a sword to kill the bull. It's stupid, motivates the bull, and gives the bull a great chance to win the fight.
(snip)

Mostly the effect that has been focused on here and in news articles is the burning but the smoke is definitely toxic.

"The dose is the poison., -- Paracelsus. You lock yourself in a one room cabin, close the damper on the fireplace, and set a nice phosphorus fire to warm the place up, yeah, you're in trouble.
"...the smoke is definitely toxic." The confidence of this assertion, not just yours, but in other words by other people elsewhere in this and other threads, is intriguing. If "The Guardian" hadn't started such a myth, the Psy-Ops people at DoD would have had to.
"What in the hell has he been smoking, and what's he talking about?" Easy. WP is useless as an anti-personnel weapon. It is useful for dislodging people from protected positions in trenches, foxholes, bunkers, and buildings, exposing them to effective anti-personnel weapons. As a hostile force becomes more familiar with its effects, the psychological utility of WP as a dislodging agent diminishes --- the hostile troops become disciplined enough to stay put, treat their burns, and breathe through wet rags. Fallujah was a year ago. The Marines are near the Syrian border, and running into some tough fighting. Is "shake and bake" not working for them as well as it used to?
(snip)

 

[Art]

Bystander - The pictures of charred corpses, the doctors' testimonies from the hospitals in Falluja and the eyewitness reports would appear to disagree with your theoretical view of the effects of WP but rather than get bogged down in 'it kills people - no it doesn't - yes it does - ad infinitum we shall wait and see what the investigation from the Iraqi health ministry reports or better yet hopefully the UN will send a team to investigate.

It is interesting to see that you appear to be supporting the view that the US used chemical weapons in contravention of the CWC (a convention they did sign) i.e. they were using WP for it's toxic effects which is an illegal use under the convention.

Is this a correct summation of your position?

 

[Bystander]

Bystander - (snip)It is interesting to see that you appear to be supporting the view that the US used chemical weapons in contravention of the CWC (a convention they did sign) i.e. they were using WP for it's toxic effects which is an illegal use under the convention.
Is this a correct summation of your position?

No. (lengthening to 10 characters)

 

[Art]

No. (lengthening to 10 characters)

one extreme to the other. Brief but 'illuminating' Anyway nice to see your opinion and your list of reasons to justify holding it.

 

[edward]

one extreme to the other. Brief but 'illuminating' Anyway nice to see your opinion and your list of reasons to justify holding it.

This is kind of like the pentagon's position. NO, er maybe, NO, actually YES we did it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Bystander - The pictures of charred corpses...

I strongly doubt thoses charred corpses had anything to do with WP. That's not how WP burns look. Some of those pics look just like natural decay after death, and some others, like flame burns.

WP burns are characterized by tiny bullet-hole like charred entry tracts, not widespread burning.

Nevertheless, there's no denying the fact that the State Dept. lied repeatedly to cover up the use of WP.

(sometime, I'll dig up a source for my above assertion)

 

[Astronuc]

Kevin Sites recalls his journey through Fallujah with US troops.
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1557

There is one mention of US artillery using white phosphorus (WP) rounds -

Artillery units are registering their mortars in the late afternoon, using both explosive and white phosphorous rounds.

Some of it is pretty graphic - particularly the section "My Struggle".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"The dose is the poison., -- Paracelsus. You lock yourself in a one room cabin, close the damper on the fireplace, and set a nice phosphorus fire to warm the place up, yeah, you're in trouble.
"...the smoke is definitely toxic." The confidence of this assertion, not just yours, but in other words by other people elsewhere in this and other threads, is intriguing. If "The Guardian" hadn't started such a myth, the Psy-Ops people at DoD would have had to.

The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries.

Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough. Medical personnel should be prepared to treat potential reactions to military smokes once such smokes have been introduced to the battlefield. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

So not anymore toxic than pretty much any other sort of smoke but still toxic. Now consider people hiding in cramped spaces for several hours at a time inhaling the stuff and without access to medical treatment. Don't you think that people would likely die from that?

I strongly doubt thoses charred corpses had anything to do with WP. That's not how WP burns look. Some of those pics look just like natural decay after death, and some others, like flame burns.

WP burns are characterized by tiny bullet-hole like charred entry tracts, not widespread burning.

White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor.

I'll have to look around and see if I can find pics.

 

[Gokul43201]

Astronuc : This may sound strange but (the third line of) my above post is almost verbatim from an NPR interview with John Pike, the founder of Globalsecurity.org

 

[edward]

Most of the pictures are showing bodies in various, but mostly advanced stages of decomposition.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32&page=5

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32&page=9

My big problem is with the reports of bodies being found inside of homes and even in bed with no obvious wounds. I can see why some people would think of toxic chemical weapons being used. (The locals in Fallujah claimed that poisonous gases were used).

We do know that excessive amounts of WP were lobbed into the streets accompanied by plenty of HE. WP in shells comes in the form of wedge shaped pieces of felt cloth saturated with phosphorus. That being the case the HE shredded the Felt into small fragments and drove those fragments into the buildings. Which of course is what the military intended to happen. That is what shake and bake is all about.

The end result is that many of the people most likely were overcome by the particles of WP in their lungs and some probably died from asphixiation because the WP consumed so much oxygen.

There is also the possibility that toxic phosphine gas was produced by the chemical fire strorm burning in the streets. Until 2005 there were artillery shells in the Marine arsenal that actually contained phosphine gas.

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/78377D9C17838D6A8525708A006959E6?opendocument

Regardless of what Americans may or may not think, the rest of the world is mad as hell about this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Most of the pictures are showing bodies in various, but mostly advanced stages of decomposition.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32&page=5
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32&page=9
My big problem is with the reports of bodies being found inside of homes and even in bed with no obvious wounds. I can see why some people would think of toxic chemical weapons being used. (The locals in Fallujah claimed that poisonous gases were used).
We do know that excessive amounts of WP were lobbed into the streets accompanied by plenty of HE. WP in shells comes in the form of wedge shaped pieces of felt cloth saturated with phosphorus. That being the case the HE shredded the Felt into small fragments and drove those fragments into the buildings. Which of course is what the military intended to happen. That is what shake and bake is all about.

Can you show me a source stating that the HE was used to scatter the WP intentionally or is this your theory? Can you show me a source for this being the definition of "shake and bake"? I haven't seen such a definition from anyone accept a couple people posting on this thread. If it's just your theory you may want to make sure to point that out.

The end result is that many of the people most likely were overcome by the particles of WP in their lungs and some probably died from asphixiation because the WP consumed so much oxygen.

WP getting in the lungs is not terribly likely. Considering that the reaction of WP with oxygen is so violent and quick it is rare for WP particles to survive in the smoke. If the particles did survive and find their way into the lungs the trace quantities would not be sufficient to cause toxicity in such a short time I don't believe. Match makers developed toxicity over years of working with phospherous.
That they were asphixiated due to the smoke I believe is very possible in my opinion. I've been wondering what the casualty numbers were and how many of these casualties had burn marks that could be attributed to WP and how many might be attributed to asphixiation.

There is also the possibility that toxic phosphine gas was produced by the chemical fire strorm burning in the streets. Until 2005 there were artillery shells in the Marine arsenal that actually contained phosphine gas.
http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/78377D9C17838D6A8525708A006959E6?opendocument
Regardless of what Americans may or may not think, the rest of the world is mad as hell about this.

If you reread what you posted they were getting rid of the gas because they apparently could not use the shells unless they were "degassed". It also states that the problem with the gas was that it posed a danger to those using the shells.
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/safety/phosphin.htm
Phosphine gas would not be produced by a fire considering that phosphine gas is highly flammable. The fire in the streets would have consumed the gas not produced it.

 

[Bystander]

So not anymore toxic than pretty much any other sort of smoke but still toxic. Now consider people hiding in cramped spaces for several hours at a time inhaling the stuff and without access to medical treatment. Don't you think that people would likely die from that? (snip)

No ventilation suggests that there won't be a whole lot of smoke getting in. Ventilation enough to get smoke in suggests that it'll "rinse" fairly quickly. People die of suffocation in structural fires when they are in rooms surrounded by combustion processes generating smoke. Little hard to conceive of circumstances that are going to yield concentrations adequate to kill without burning the building.

Some of the other military smokes can get rather rough; those are the ones for which medical personnel are to be prepared to handle casualties.
http://www.vnh.org/FM8285/Chapter/chapter8.html
If some of these were in use, collateral chemical casualties are conceivable.

Most of the pictures are showing bodies in various, but mostly advanced stages of decomposition.
(snip)
My big problem is with the reports of bodies being found inside of homes and even in bed with no obvious wounds. I can see why some people would think of toxic chemical weapons being used. (The locals in Fallujah claimed that poisonous gases were used).

Couple general comments/observations: 1) "no obvious wounds" may not mean "no wounds;" 2) battlefields are witches brews. Decomposition products of conventional explosives and propellants (gun powder) are toxic. I'm not aware of that many Maxim gunners killing themselves in their bunkers on the western front in WW I, but I've had the impression that they were fairly careful to keep the gun muzzles outside the firing ports. A building "full" of people firing automatic weapons and RPGs can become untenable very quickly if they happen to be "clever" and keep to the interior shadows and fire through windows without making an effort to keep the gases from muzzles, or launcher backblasts, exhausting through the windows. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying that if the occupants were more concerned with concealment when firing than with breathing, they may have inflicted casualties upon themselves that would exhibit no wounds.

 

[Art]

No ventilation suggests that there won't be a whole lot of smoke getting in. Ventilation enough to get smoke in suggests that it'll "rinse" fairly quickly. People die of suffocation in structural fires when they are in rooms surrounded by combustion processes generating smoke. Little hard to conceive of circumstances that are going to yield concentrations adequate to kill without burning the building.
Some of the other military smokes can get rather rough; those are the ones for which medical personnel are to be prepared to handle casualties.
http://www.vnh.org/FM8285/Chapter/chapter8.html
If some of these were in use, collateral chemical casualties are conceivable.
Couple general comments/observations: 1) "no obvious wounds" may not mean "no wounds;" 2) battlefields are witches brews. Decomposition products of conventional explosives and propellants (gun powder) are toxic. I'm not aware of that many Maxim gunners killing themselves in their bunkers on the western front in WW I, but I've had the impression that they were fairly careful to keep the gun muzzles outside the firing ports. A building "full" of people firing automatic weapons and RPGs can become untenable very quickly if they happen to be "clever" and keep to the interior shadows and fire through windows without making an effort to keep the gases from muzzles, or launcher backblasts, exhausting through the windows. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying that if the occupants were more concerned with concealment when firing than with breathing, they may have inflicted casualties upon themselves that would exhibit no wounds.

I still think SHC is a more likely theory.

BTW the wounds described for exposure to WP i,e, small pin sized burn holes are for when WP is used legally i.e. air bursts for illumination or screening .

So while we're speculating let's imagine what happens when HE shells and WP are fired in tandem in copious amounts at people. I'd consider it likely that the multiple exploding shells would reduce the oxygen available for immediate combustion of the WP allowing large patches of the wedges to survive long enough to come into contact with and cause great damage to the people being targeted - the air would probably be rather warm as well and breathing superheated air is probably not good for one which would explain the rather descriptive term used for the process - shake = HE and bake = WP. But that's probably too obvious so maybe I'll go along with some of the others here and go for something really off the wall like SHC (spontaneous human combustion)

 

[Astronuc]

Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html?th&emc=th (registration required, access free for 7 days)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, NY Times - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.

The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.

The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.

"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.

"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."

Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.

"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in Iraq, he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.

At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.

The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.

Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.

"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.

But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.

After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."

But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.

In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.

While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."

 

[edward]

Can you show me a source stating that the HE was used to scatter the WP intentionally or is this your theory? Can you show me a source for this being the definition of "shake and Bake.

It has been the common military term for mixed WP and HE for several years.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/11/shake_n_bake.html
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/11/shake_n_bake.html

That they were asphixiated due to the smoke I believe is very possible in my opinion. I've been wondering what the casualty numbers were and how many of these casualties had burn marks that could be attributed to WP and how many might be attributed to asphixiation.

I have been wondering that myself. Especially as it pertains to women and children. Most of the pictures I find are of men with numbered ID's and the military puts the numbers on. I don't think that the military would clear photos of women and children.

If you reread what you posted they were getting rid of the gas because they apparently could not use the shells unless they were "degassed". It also states that the problem with the gas was that it posed a danger to those using the shells.

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/safety/phosphin.htm
Phosphine gas would not be produced by a fire considering that phosphine gas is highly flammable. The fire in the streets would have consumed the gas not produced it.

Which of course would have consumed oxygen making the aspixiation idea even more credible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It has been the common military term for mixed WP and HE for several years.

You're source isn't very clear on the matter, it simply sites the use of WP and HE without much detail.

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

It says that they were degassing the shells so they would be ready for use and those using them wouldn't have to degas the shells themselves before utilizing them. They said that the degassing was necessary to the safety of marines, that is to say the people using the shells.

Red phosphorus reacts slowly with oxygen and water vapor and can evolve phosphine gas, which is highly toxic. The reaction is extremely slow at normal temperatures and humidities and is not considered to be a factor in the deployment of phosphorus munitions in military operations. However, this reaction can be catalyzed by metal ions (e.g., iron and copper), which can markedly increase the oxidation rate. The physical and chemical properties of red phosphorus are listed below: Formula: Polymeric (P4)n CAS no.: 7723-14-0 Molecular weight: 123.9n Density: 2.34 g/cm3 Melting point: Sublimes at 416°C
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309057361/html/98.html

Phosphine gas occurs due to moisture and oxidation as phosphorus mortar rounds degrade over time. The degassing was not done because the the shells were made with it and it is illegal to use shells with phosphine gas in them it is because it means the shells are degrading and are unsafe to use unless degassed.

http://www.armycorrosion.com/past_s...orning/Sid_Markowitz_session/Jules_Senske.pdf
Phosphine gas was not introduced into the Fallujah battle field. If you have a source that states otherwise please post it.

 

[edward]

You're source isn't very clear on the matter, it simply sites the use of WP and HE without much detail.

Call it what you want the Marines call it shake and bake.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

The author of this information WAS THERE., but no I can't do a double blind study and a statistical analysis that provides empirical evidence. As a matter of fact the information in the link is from the assault on the city in April. If it was SHAKE AND BAKE In April it was SHAKE AND BAKE In November. Hell Bells man call it "COOKING 101" if you want!

http://www.armycorrosion.com/past_s...orning/Sid_Markowitz_session/Jules_Senske.pdf

This link is referring to red phosphorus.

Phosphine gas was not introduced into the Fallujah battle field. If you have a source that states otherwise please post it.

Did I say that it was intentionally used in Fallujah?? That is your assumption. My assumption was that as time passed the shells used would have phosphine present.
As for the slow degredation of phosphorus producing poshine gas, it happens very quickly when heated. Since phosphine gas is a quite frequent by product of industrial processes, and not all of those WP shells used were shiny and new, I only thew it into the post to bring out discussion that might help to explain the obvious asphyxiations.

And no I can't provide pictures of obvious asphyxiations. But I can supply links providing information that indicates that non combatants were found dead in their beds. But of course you would doubt them anyway because that information was provided by the non combatant survivors in Fallujah.

 

[russ_watters]

Edward, you didn't take part in the previous discussion where the "shake and bake" quote originated, so I can't assume you saw the original quote. Art, you responded too that part, so you must have seen the original quote. The original quote was:

(quoted by Burnsys in post 58 of the previous thread)...using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

Both of you have switched the "shake" and the "bake". Art, besides being a lie, I can only assume you are trolling us by intentionally lying about an issue that has already been covered. Edward, if you acknowledge your error and correct yourself, I won't have to assume you are purposefully lying as well.

edit: Correction, I see the link that you posted, edward, has the same quote as what Burnsys posted. So you must also know that you are using the phrase incorrectly.

Besides intentionally switching the "shake" and the "bake", you guys are speculating - ie, making crap up as you go along - and passing it off as accepted facts. That's not acceptable either.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Call it what you want the Marines call it shake and bake.

The Marines and military people quoted have referred to "shake n bake" as flushing out a target with WP and then taking out the target with HE. This is not the definition you have used.
The reporter quoted only refers to the use of WP and the use of HE with no further details. He mentions them getting a WP shell and then talks of bombarding the targets with both WP and HE but does not mention how many WP shells were used compared to the number of HE shells. He does not say that the HE shells were used to spread around the WP (per your definition of shake n bake). He does not go into it any further than to say that they used both sorts of shells and referred to what they were doing as "shake n bake". You call that a clear definition?

Did I say that it was intentionally used in Fallujah?? That is your assumption. My assumption was that as time passed the shells used would have phosphine present.
As for the slow degredation of phosphorus producing poshine gas, it happens very quickly when heated. Since phosphine gas is a quite frequent by product of industrial processes, and not all of those WP shells used were shiny and new, I only thew it into the post to bring out discussion that might help to explain the obvious asphyxiations.

Perhaps you are skimming through what you read too quickly. YOUR link describes the degassing of Phos mortar shells prepratory to sending them out in the field because the Phosphine gas is dangerous to the user of the shells and these must be degassed before use. The link YOU posted clearly states that they do this so that soldiers in the field don't have to degas the shells themselves which takes up valuable time.
Two points you seem to be missing here..
- Phosphine gas in the mortar shells is dangerous to the user of the shell.
- Users of said shells degas the rounds in need of degassing themselves on the field before use.

When I pointed this out you replied with...

I did read the entire link, as a matter of fact I found phosphine hazards referenced in several links. They did not release the gas from shells until well after the attack on Falluja. I used the link as proof that the military did have shells containing phosphine. They had to de-gas the shells because they were illegal to use with the phosphene in them.

So please show me where it states the marines used shells with Phosphine gas in them on Fellujah and where it states that using such shells is illegal.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread just seems to be going in circles, rehashing the same speculation that got the previous thread on this topic closed. Thus, it is time for this one to be closed as well.