US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[Burnsys]

I couldn't agree more. Looking at the posts above it's is amazing how someone can read so much into so little and skew things so badly.
For example Burnsys misunderstanding why WP is classified as a munition.

You are right evo, i should have bolded: "versatile munition" and not only munition, Versatile becouse it can be used for: smoke, illumination, and baking..

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

If you read the entire article you will have a better understanding.

Is it common practice for mod's to comment without fully digesting the information, including linked articles etc?

 

[russ_watters]

c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.

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.

And here is a quiz for you, if HE shakes, who bakes?

Read it again: the WP shakes, the HE (high-explosive) bakes. The high explosive, not the wp, was used to kill people. Ie:

using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

"flush them out" means...flush them out, and "take them out" means to kill.

Even more specific is the beginning of the quote:

We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon.

Screening and scaring. That's it. No killing.

 

[Art]

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.

What? The only people making up outlandish scenarios based on what they 'think' are all on your side of the debate. The other side of the debate has been presented factually and backed up by quotes and references.

The only rebuttal seems to be to jump on typos in sourced articles as if in some way this strengthens your case and reflects on the person who posted it. or to try and obfuscate the facts by proposing outlandish scenarios totally unsupported by any facts whatsoever or to keep requesting clarification of facts that are blatantly obvious.

Still if all else fails as you say you can always lock the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

Minor point of clarification:

This is what you quoted I then respondedI have no idea what tangent you've gone off on, I'm looking for evidence of your claim "white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells".
Here it is. Nope. They were used for illumination and as you state are not illegal.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

WP is fired by artillery - I think you may have been reacting to past attempts to twist the wording. The issue isn't what it is fired by, but what it is fired at, and why.

 

[Evo]

What? The only people making up outlandish scenarios based on what they 'think' are all on your side of the debate. The other side of the debate has been presented factually and backed up by quotes and references.

We must be in two different threads.

Unsubstantiated quotes and references are just that. They don't make something true. And they should be treated as just that. I don't dismiss the possibility that wrongs were done or that there could be cover ups. If there weren't, this war would be a first. My problem is with the way some people take something and start claimining that it's a proven fact when it is not. It's so easy to shoot holes into their argument at that point. If they were able to take events and evidence that are as yet unproven and make a compelling, rational case, it would be much more effective. It's just not happening here. I guess it's the years of being an interscholastic debate judge that makes me bristle when people don't know how to make a case.

 

[Art]

Minor point of clarification: WP is fired by artillery

Nice to see you agreeing with me but if you check the posts above you will find I have already replied in factual detail and am awaiting a response.

- I think you may have been reacting to past attempts to twist the wording

Per Evo's post please provide the factual evidence for this statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Nice to see you agreeing with me but if you check the posts above you will find I have already replied in factual detail and am awaiting a response. Per Evo's post please provide the factual evidence for this statement.

Sure, Art.

The military did use WP in Falluja, so that isn't the crux of the issue. The issue is how and why was it used.

Here is your previous statement:

WP is not illegal in itself but it's use in civilian areas is. Surprise, surprise Fallujah as a city qualifies as a civilian area; WP shells were fired on it (per your own source) and so this is in contravention of the Geneva Convention (per ref I supplied previously).

You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

The US gov'ts contention that they were using them for illumination is irrelevent; after all you could explode an atom bomb and claim it was for illumination.

No. An atom bomb is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction", and different rules apply. You cannot use an atom bomb anywhere and reasonably claim that it was for illumination only.

That is, of course, why you were trying to argue previously that WP is a "chemical weapon", and therefore a WMD - if it were, it would be illegal regardless of use.

 

[russ_watters]

Something else that deserves expansion:

Really what do you call something that you shoot up into the sky which ignites, makes lots of light, then floats to the ground? I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Actually, when people say that WP is used as an incendiary, that is precisely what they mean (the flare-gun in a movie analogy). In one of those links floating around, it was mentioned that WP is good for igniting ammunition depots. It works well for that because it burns hot and so can "cook off" munitions that are otherwise relatively stable - stable enough that they tend not to ignite, even in an open flame (that's done for safety). It isn't as good for, say, lighting a house on fire, because it can burn right through materials without leaving them on fire. For that, a dispersed flaming liquid or jel (like the Mk77 or napalm) is better because of its coverage.

 

[Art]

We must be in two different threads.

That would explain a lot

Unsubstantiated quotes and references are just that. They don't make something true. And they should be treated as just that.

This is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. Seeing as how we do not have an all knowing scrupulously honest oracle available to us we need to rely on reports by people with all of the inherent errors and bias that make up the human race and so your statement is simply a truism as all of us have different views of what constitutes a creditable source.

Afterall who gets to decide what is a valid source and what isn't? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I have even known the BBC to be dismissed on this forum as an invalid source.

I don't dismiss the possibility that wrongs were done or that there could be cover ups. If there weren't, this war would be a first. My problem is with the way some people take something and start claimining that it's a proven fact when it is not. It's so easy to shoot holes into their argument at that point. If they were able to take events and evidence that are as yet unproven and make a compelling, rational case, it would be much more effective. It's just not happening here. I guess it's the years of being an interscholastic debate judge that makes me bristle when people don't know how to make a case.

IMHO I think I put together a very compelling argument in my earlier post in response to a request from you for a 'better' explanation and look forward to your reply.

 

[russ_watters]

You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

Hmm... it looks like I may have gven you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have. Assuming you were referring to this quote:

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. [emphasis added]

Since the highlighted phrase does not apply to WP - neither its primary purpose, nor its use in this case was for the purpose of setting fire to objects or causing burn injuries.

Short, even, of looking for technicalities to make it apply, this protocol does not apply to WP in this case at all.

 

[Art]

Sure, Art.
The military did use WP in Falluja, so that isn't the crux of the issue. The issue is how and why was it used.

Ah just for the record i see you've now changed your original post without providing the factual evidence I requested. I'm not sure this is really what Evo meant by improving the standard of this debate.

Here is your previous statement: You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

Ahem no Russ the onus is on you to prove what is ostensibly a civilian area was actually a secret military base.

No. An atom bomb is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction", and different rules apply. You cannot use an atom bomb anywhere and reasonably claim that it was for illumination only.

Yes it would be a ridiculous claim to try and hide illegal activity behind a weak excuse like that wouldn't it.

That is, of course, why you were trying to argue previously that WP is a "chemical weapon", and therefore a WMD - if it were, it would be illegal regardless of use.

More obfuscation The use of WP against civilian areas is illegal under the Convention on Conventional Weapons as I have already posted, so let's not go down the strawman route again, it detracts from serious debate.

 

[Smurf]

Ahem no Russ the onus is on you to prove what is ostensibly a civilian area was actually a secret military base.

He's got you there, Russ. A city is a civilian area. Unless they were specifically targetting a military target, which has yet to be shown.

 

[Art]

Hmm... it looks like I may have gven you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have. Assuming you were referring to this quote: Since the highlighted phrase does not apply to WP - neither its primary purpose, nor its use in this case was for the purpose of setting fire to objects or causing burn injuries.
Short, even, of looking for technicalities to make it apply, this protocol does not apply to WP in this case at all.

You are wrong per sources previously supplied not to mention the pictures of the corpses of women and children. Again per Evo's request please research material you intend to post before posting it.

 

[Evo]

He's got you there, Russ. A city is a civilian area. Unless they were specifically targetting a military target, which has yet to be shown.

Actually there was something posted previously showing that the use was allowed because they had an identified military target there. That's been one of the issues, the insurgents intentionally hide among the civilians hoping that will provide safety It's horrible and it's cowardly. Using innocent people as shields is disgusting. That puts the military in a very uncomfortable position. Yes, it's war and there will be civilian casualties, but to intentionally put civilians in harms way is deplorable.

 

[SOS2008]

I don’t know what the U.S. has in its arsenal, but when bunker busters, torture, etc. are promoted, it makes one wonder. And people can try to pretty it up by changing the Department of War to the Department of Defense, and use whatever euphemism they choose, like “collateral damage” nonetheless the results are death and destruction.

Other than that, I’m not falling for the BAN BAIT, so I'm out of this thread.

 

[Evo]

IMHO I think I put together a very compelling argument in my earlier post in response to a request from you for a 'better' explanation and look forward to your reply.

Yeah, it was well done, really irritated me.

 

[Skyhunter]

My purpose in starting this thread was to bring to the attention of others the documentary I had seen.

Whether or not the US military violated any "rules of war" is beside the point. Here is a great post on KOS by Hunter that puts it into perspective.

I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

 

[Art]

Actually there was something posted previously showing that the use was allowed because they had an identified military target there.

I hate to be pedantic Evo but can you supply a reference for this statement as here is what the protocol actually says

Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. 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.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

That's been one of the issues, the insurgents intentionally hide among the civilians hoping that will provide safety It's horrible and it's cowardly. Using innocent people as shields is disgusting. That puts the military in a very uncomfortable position. Yes, it's war and there will be civilian casualties, but to intentionally put civilians in harms way is deplorable.

It doesn't help the non-combatant civilians separate themselves from the insurgents when the US military refused to allow any males between the ages of 18 and 65 to leave the city of Fallujah prior to the bombardment.

 

[Art]

Yeah, it was well done, really irritated me.

That's women for you. Give them what they ask for and then they don't want it
No wonder they say 'can't live with them and can't shoot them' (or something like that)

 

[edward]

You do realize that white phos is used in fireworks and incendiaries and that sort of thing as well right? It doesn't just make smoke.

It depends on the mixture of chemicals used, and we arent talking about fireworks here. Actually true illumination also aids the enemy and is a blinding disadvantage to our troops who use night vision equipment.

Really what do you call something that you shoot up into the sky which ignites, makes lots of light, then floats to the ground? I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

This was definitely not a movie.

Also if you really read around about what was being used by whom you will see references to the use of white phos smoke bombs aswell.

I have read through several hundred pages! This was Dresden in Iraq. 500 pound Willy Peter bombs were used extensively to completely saturate the city with smoke while our tanks moved into position to cordon off the city. There was even a friendly fire incident where the WP landed on our own troops. The WP artillery shells used were 120mm not 155mm. The Marines also had WP rockets which were fired from several types of launch platforms.

I don't really care what is used on true insurgents. I have a big problem with the use of incendiary devices on cities. There were thousands of innocent people, women and children included, who did not or could not evacuate the city.
Why they didn't evacuate I am not exactly sure. But it appears that our troops dropped leaflets informing of a mandatory evauation in 48 hours. Then the military immediately closed off all roads leaving the city except one. Not all of the 300,000 residents could make it out of the city before the bombs started to fall. I have read accounts that indicate that 20,000 to 30,000 noncombatants were still in Fallujah.

I had a good link on this but for some reason it no longer works.

 

[devil-fire]

My purpose in starting this thread was to bring to the attention of others the documentary I had seen.
Whether or not the US military violated any "rules of war" is beside the point. Here is a great post on KOS by Hunter that puts it into perspective.

this is a point i think that is neglected too often in war, that when the other side's combatinents (note, most of these insurgents are considered civilians anyway) are among non-combatinents, different weapons should be used in that situation.

if a device like WP can kill people who are caught in the smoke, then don't use it on a neighborhood with women and children, "combat zone" or otherwise.



this is off topic and just my opinion but i think most of the insurgents who attack military patrols from residential areas do so because houses provide a lot of cover from bullets and not because civilians provide cover from large bombs and other such area of effect weapons, as is shown in fallujah (not specifically to do with WP or mk77 but just the large number of casualties).

 

[edward]

Yes white phosphorus is great for smoke screens, however the US military has used white phosphorus for illumination flares for countless years.
"About 2:30 A.M., we heard noises in the night. We called the Sergeant of the Guard for permission to pop a flare. These hand held flares were different colors, but we always used white. You took off the cap and placed it on the bottom of the silver tube which was a little larger than a road flare. While holding the side of the tube, you smacked the cap on something hard. Doing so fired the small pyrotechnic flare up 50-75 feet before a small charge would "pop" and ignite the white phosphorus. It was suspended on a small parachute which would keep the illumination for a few minutes."
http://www.war-stories.com/plantation-nagle-pop-flare-1971.htm

Countless years for sure, your link is from an account of events that took place in 1972.

More from the same link, an accout of GI launching a phosphorus flare:

After several minutes of dodging this missile it came to rest, and with a pop ignited the white phosphorus flare blinding us. I squinted to see where it had landed. To my horror it was burning brightly on a box of grenades! We yelled and started throwing everything out of the tower. I picked up the burning phosphorus with an old flak jacket and threw it over board. Several of the guys were already on the ground as they had un-assed the tower when the flare came back inside!

This is why phosprous flares were replaced.

 

[Mercator]

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.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

 

[Art]

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.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

I fully agree. It is disgusting that this US gov't should condemn Sadam for using WMD against civilians whilst perpetrating this type of mass murder themselves with equally vile weapons hiding behind the fact that they never signed the convention banning their use in civilian areas.
A point, I am sorry to say, some here miss but the rest of the world hasn't.

US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq
The US assault began exactly a year ago
Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.
Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city.
The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm
As with the MK77s mentioned earlier where the military spokesmen were unsure of what had already been admitted and what hadn't, a request for information from the military in Baghdad drew this response

A US military spokesman in Baghdad said earlier on Tuesday he did not recall white phosphorus being used in Fallujah

Seems they're playing it safe these days by falling back on Reagan's old Iran/Contra defence of "I don't remember" despite an earlier admission of their use in Fallujah on the US gov'ts own information web site. Like I said "Liars need good memories"

 

[edward]

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.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

Hmmm I was going to post that link but I was afraid that it might make some of the chicken hawks toss up their din din.

 

[Mercator]

Hmmm I was going to post that link but I was afraid that it might make some of the chicken hawks toss up their din din.

Let's hope so, but they have hardened stomaches.

 

[Evo]

Countless years for sure, your link is from an account of events that took place in 1972.

That's exactly why I chose it, to show this has a long history.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Never mind 'reading around' did you even read your own references you supplied earlier? Here's an extract for you.

Because of this, WP has long had a secondary role as an incendiary, either directly or more usually as a "first fire" material

Yes I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

The Mk-77 is the only incendiary bomb currently in use by the United States military. Another incendiary weapon - white phosphorus - is allegedly being used as an incendiary weapon in the current Iraq War. White phosphorus or 'Willie Pete' is used primarly as a smoke-screening agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.
The footage shows that WP was being used for illumination purposes. Admittedly I have not seen all of the footage as I already mentioned but I did not see it being fired directly at any targets or into buildings as claimed nor have I seen anyone else provide evidence that such happened only protests that it wasn't logical to use it for illumination purposes even though that is clearly what is being shown in the footage cited.

Ofcourse there is this...

b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition.
We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. [my emphasis added]
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004..._504_10_04.txt

It seems that Evo and Russ are the only ones not glossing over the where they specifically state that the WP was used for screening purposes here. Every one else wants to focus on the words "lethal missions" without attention paid to the fact that it states WP was used for "screening" and "flushing out".

Why would they use it as an ilumination when they have night vision? So they can blind themselfs, and give the enemy a hand in spoting where they are...

It seems illogical

One: I doubt they could have easily rounded up enough night vision equipment for the number of soldiers involved in the operation. As far as I know night vision isn't standard issue gear.
Two: This is a siege situation we are talking about. In a siege situation your enemy knows you are there and are lying in wait. Even with night vision it would be a bad idea to try sneaking up on an enemy who is waiting for you.
In such a situation it is common to use smoke bombs and flash bangs and the like to disorient your enemy. You run the risk of disorienting your own people as well but the effort should be concerted enough and timed well enough that this doesn't happen.


In the end we have all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP is unacceptable.
The only difference is that some of us believe it was done on purpose and some of us believe it is possible that it may have been done intentionally but have yet to see evidence that convinces us of it.

 

[Evo]

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.

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

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.

What 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

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

http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08[/QUOTE]The link doesn't work. And again, the discussion drops into personal opinion with no hard evidence. You guys need to try to make a case. I'd like to believe you guys, but I'm not seeing anything that backs up what you say. "A reporter that said someone said something". Sorry, that's no proof. "Look a picture of dead people after an attack on insurgents". It's a war.

Have you seen a body that's been blown apart by explosives?