News US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[Skyhunter]

No. they are just going around in circles, avoiding the point...
and the point is, The US used incendiaries weapons (be it, mk77, napalm, wp) over places with civilian populations.. resulting in the burning alive of a lot of inocent civilians.

There seems to be an active effort to quash discussion of this topic.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Anttech]

war is hell. Despite what many like to believe, it is necessary. In all of human history there have been ideals humans have chosen to live for and to die for. In the Western Civilization we hold a particular standard of behavior and a particular respect for life. And we will go to any extreme to defend and uphold it because that is the life we know. And that is reality my friends. When we fail to uphold our way of life, others will kill us to uphold theirs. If we decided to quit upholding our values, we will be killed by those that have ideals that differ. The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.

I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.
Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

 

[deckart]

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

? Islam began in the 7th century, "hundreds of years" ago.

 

[Art]

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

 

[loseyourname]

Type = WMD / illegal weapons.
White phosporous when delivered by artillary shells produces a gas cloud which when inhaled burns you from the inside out and it's use against civilian areas whether or not there are military present is prohibited by international law thus the US military commited a war crime. Now instead of sitting in denial or worse, trying to justify it, accept it as it is and you might begin to understand why there is so much animosity to the US campaign in Iraq from the rest of the world.

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[Art]

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

It's difficult to be precise as to what weapons they were accused of having as at various times leading up to the invasion the US gov't said;

August 7, 2002 - US Vice-President Dick Cheney: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

September 12, 2002 - US President George Bush at the United Nations General Assembly: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

January 28, 2003 - George Bush in a State of the Union address: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

February 5, 2003 - US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council: "While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket-launchers and warheads containing a biological warfare agent to various locations ... in western Iraq."

March 16, 2003 - Dick Cheney press conference: "We believe he [Saddam] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong."

March 17, 2003 - George Bush in his address to the US before the war: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He obviously hadn't had a peep into his own arsenal.

 

[deckart]

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

How can you connect the Iraqi's to 9/11?

And he was over there to make money, not help their people.

 

[edward]

I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.

The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.

Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

 

[deckart]

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.
The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.
Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

You guys are right, it doesn't have to do with Iraq directly. But, from the information that we are being fed (which of course can be conflictiing) the resistance in Iraq is from insurgents that are not Iraqi. They are religious zealots willing to kill themselves to harm Iraqi's who desire democracy and Americans alike.
And I do not condone the use of napalm or napalm like weapons on civilian targets. That's just plain wrong and cannot be justified.

 

[deckart]

How can you connect the Iraqi's to 9/11?
And he was over there to make money, not help their people.

I thought he was over there as part of the reconstruction. So yes, he would be making money doing that. But, he wasn't military nor their to harm anyone and therefore should not have been decapitated.

 

[Art]

You guys are right, it doesn't have to do with Iraq directly. But, from the information that we are being fed (which of course can be conflictiing) the resistance in Iraq is from insurgents that are not Iraqi. They are religious zealots willing to kill themselves to harm Iraqi's who desire democracy and Americans alike.
And I do not condone the use of napalm or napalm like weapons on civilian targets. That's just plain wrong and cannot be justified.

Check it out and you'll find the VAST majority of the insurgents are Iraqi not foreign fighters.

Foreign detainees are few in Iraq
By Peter Eisler and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.
Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis.

The numbers represent one of the most precise measurements to date of the composition of the insurgency and suggest that some Bush administration officials have overstated the role of foreign holy warriors, or jihadists, from other Arab states. The figures also suggest that Iraq isn't as big a magnet for foreign terrorists as some administration critics have asserted

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm
Bush and co lied about why he was going to war and is continuing to lie about the nature of the war.

As ever the facts do not quite gel with the nonsense spouted by the White House. Another strange discrepancy is the claim by the Bush admin that the insurgency are being fed by the Iranians and yet the insurgency is mainly comprised of Sunni's whereas Iran is Shi'ite. Bit of a mis-match there as the shi'ites and sunni's are at war with each other.

 

[RunDMC]

Find a good European news service from a country where dead bodies on the TV is less of a taboo. That way, you can see all the actual violence and killing in Iraq without having to watch emotive pre-clips from 60's Vietnam.

I think there's actually something to that. Americans don't tend to see too many open skulls at dinner time and and images of children with their legs torn off quite as often (which I totally agree with BTW -- children watch the news, too!), so they are quite put off when they travel abroad and hear such condemnation for the whole Iraq mess.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought he was over there as part of the reconstruction. So yes, he would be making money doing that. But, he wasn't military nor their to harm anyone and therefore should not have been decapitated.

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way implying that he should have been decapitated. And filming it for Americans to see just serves to strengthen the resolve of persons with similar sensibilities as yourself. Just like the Italian documentary, will strengthen the resolve of those on the other side.

BTW - His father blames Bush for his sons death.

What happened in Fallujah is a result of the actions of the current US administration. We did not need to attack Iraq to fight terrorism, in fact, attacking Iraq is fueling terrorism, not diminishing it.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry Evo but you'll have to research it yourself

Research what? Either you can explain it or you can't. I asked you a simple question, since it was already public knowledge, posted by the US government on it's own website for the entire world to see, obviously the US Government wasn't trying to conceal anything. I think the UK Defense Minister misunderstood what he was told. This was an exchange, supposedly, between two people, the US Government wasn't lying to anyone, the truth was already out there.

Still I'm sure the vast majority of readers here WILL understand how the US gov't lied first to the public in general and then to the British gov't specifically re their use of MK77s.

Only if they can't read.

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

This is what you quoted

[Point 3.
As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

I then responded

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

I 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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

I'll get back to this later, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the sources but from what I have read MK77 is the only type of incendiary munition in active inventory with the US military. If so then no WP incendiaries are supposed to even be available for use. The military does how ever use WP in smoke screen devices such as smoke bombs. From what I read it is common for small bits of WP to fly off of such devices when they go off. The smoke from WP can also be toxic which may explain the ashen unburned corpses that were mention previously.

I'll be back in about an hour with more possibly.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'll get back to this later, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the sources but from what I have read MK77 is the only type of incendiary munition in active inventory with the US military. If so then no WP incendiaries are supposed to even be available for use. The military does how ever use WP in smoke screen devices such as smoke bombs. From what I read it is common for small bits of WP to fly off of such devices when they go off. The smoke from WP can also be toxic which may explain the ashen unburned corpses that were mention previously.
I'll be back in about an hour with more possibly.

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.

When white phosphorus burns:
P4 + 5 O2 → 2 P2O5

The formed phosphorus pentoxide absorbs water from your tissues and quickly converts into phosphoric acid which then burns your skin:

P2O5 + 3 H2O → 2 H3PO4
__________________
i already know how this will end

If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

 

[Evo]

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.
If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

When white phosphorus flares are used for illumination, some of it does fall to the ground and some people could accidently get burned as a result.

Here's a quote from the Newsweek article written right after the attack on Fallujah.

"At intervals, white phosphorus rounds would illuminate entire sections of the city, showering down balls of orange flame and leaving behind smoky jellyfish-shaped silhouettes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6479631/site/newsweek/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Those sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?n=224;c=8/7/3/1;s=1;d=14;w=728;h=90

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.
If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

I am at work and can not watch the entire video. What I have seen looks like flares which corresponds with the US official story.
What I have read also states that the use of WP is not illegal.

I will agree, and I think every one here will, that the effects seen due to the use of WP in Fallujah are terrible and that it would be best to not use these devices in such situations.
The fact remains that the US has not willfully engaged in the use of illegal weapons. It is also up in the air as to whether or not the manner in which the devices were utilized was illegal. To say that illegal weapons were used or that the US are responsible for breech of any concordance does not accurately portray the facts.

 

[devil-fire]

i think that because WP is classified as something other then a weapon there are no official restrictions on its use. even if it was being used to illuminate areas that did not need to be illuminated and it killed non-combatinents in the process, it would not officially be "used illegally" but that largely has to do with the classification of the device and not the effect it has in the area.

if flares cause the indiscriminate death of people who are in shelter, and then video documentation of the event is stolen i don't care if it breaks official guide lines. i consider the use of the device to be immoral in that situation.

 

[edward]

ere 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

Ahh yes the State Department of Spin Control.

OK now I will say this one more time.
White phosphorus is not used for illumination it creates a big white cloud that obscures.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.

Magnesium flares are used for illumination. And I do believe that we have a jillion dollars worth of night vision equipment in Iraq anyway.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/luu2.htm

 

[Evo]

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

 

[deckart]

Well, it looks like they may have devised a way to use it as a weapon. I mean, if you want to illuminate a city, you fire it above the city not into it. So one of two things happened, IMO. (1)They had an idiot who did not know how to use WP correctly or (2)They intentionally fired it into the city. Now if it is the latter, I'm disgusted.
I am not against our cause in Iraq, but civilians need to be considered as precious as our own troops. It's easy for me to say in the safety of my home, not being in the midst of the life and death fighting but those directing the battles have to be diligent to minimize civilian casualties.

 

[Evo]

Well, it looks like they may have devised a way to use it as a weapon. I mean, if you want to illuminate a city, you fire it above the city not into it. So one of two things happened, IMO. (1)They had an idiot who did not know how to use WP correctly or (2)They intentionally fired it into the city. Now if it is the latter, I'm disgusted.
I am not against our cause in Iraq, but civilians need to be considered as precious as our own troops. It's easy for me to say in the safety of my home, not being in the midst of the life and death fighting but those directing the battles have to be diligent to minimize civilian casualties.

I agree. The next part of this post has nothing to do with you.

People make stupid decisions, especially in stressful/emotional situations. I can't say that some weren't intentionally fired into the city. We will probably never know for sure. What bothers me are the people that fly off the handle screaming conspiracy, and making accusations without any proof.

What ever happened to considering possibilities rationally? I see a complete lack of rational thinking here at times. Sure there are bad people, bad things are done. Calmly make a point, don't lower yourself to tabloid tactics. That will turn most people off to your cause so fast it will make your head spin. Don't post something unless you have carefully and thoroughly checked it out. Otherwise, you are just wasting people's time.

Whatever happened to the American policy of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? It appears that some here prefer "guilty until proven innocent" if it has to do with something they don't agree with.

What would have been a good thread would have been "Italian video raises questions about Fallujah". Then proceed to list what might be evidence of wrongs and start a dialogue about it. I guess my hopes are too high. I'm getting really tired of dealing with the National Inquirer in here instead.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ahh yes the State Department of Spin Control.
OK now I will say this one more time.
White phosphorus is not used for illumination it creates a big white cloud that obscures.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232
Magnesium flares are used for illumination. And I do believe that we have a jillion dollars worth of night vision equipment in Iraq anyway.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/luu2.htm

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. 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.
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.

 

[Anttech]

Yes white phosphorus is great for smoke screens, however the US military has used white phosphorus for illumination flares for countless years.

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

 

[Skyhunter]

Whatever happened to the American policy of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

See PATRIOT acts 1 and 2.

Sure there could be other explanations, go ahead and offer them.

Go ahead and blame the rants of others on the title.

The film is what it is. What happened in Fallujah and what his happening in Iraq is deplorable. That helicopter was not illuminating the area, and there were no troops moving through the smoke after the WP was used.

Your right we will probably never know what happened because the facts are being suppressed. I am not so blindly patriotic as to believe the propaganda coming from the military.

 

[Art]

Research what? Either you can explain it or you can't. I asked you a simple question, since it was already public knowledge, posted by the US government on it's own website for the entire world to see, obviously the US Government wasn't trying to conceal anything. I think the UK Defense Minister misunderstood what he was told. This was an exchange, supposedly, between two people, the US Government wasn't lying to anyone, the truth was already out there.

I'll try one last time to explain it to you. Adam Ingram the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in Britain in response to a written question in parliament contacted the US authorities and asked if the US military had used either napalm or MK77s in Iraq. The reply he received was that they had not. This was misinformation commonly known as a lie. Based on the lie he had been told this is the answer Ingram gave to parliament

"The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time."
"No other coalition member has Mark 77 firebombs in their inventory."

Following Ingram's subsequent letter to MP Harry Cohen correcting this misinformation defence Secretary John Reid said

American officials in Baghdad had given the wrong information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
Now I do not give a rat's ass if another segment of the US gov't had already admitted using MK77s as apart from highlighting the incompetence of the US administration and the proof of the old adage that 'a good liar needs a good memory' it is completely irrelevant and has zero bearing on the central matter. Although the US confusion whether to confirm or deny no doubt arose from this earlier piece of Orwellian wordcraft

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'
At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001, it said.
The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.
Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon, said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds. Mr Musil said denial of its use fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration].
The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.
Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were remarkably similar to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.
But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it. Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs napalm.
Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie.
In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.
10 August 2003 14:12

I 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.

You mean yes. The US gov't report you cite admits they DID fire white phophorous shells in Fallujah.

Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes

Their claim that this was for illumination purposes has already been debunked by others here so I won't bother other than to provide this quote from Globalsecurity

Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect.

I'll also explain to you again as you apparently missed it the first time. 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). Contraventions of the Geneva Convention constitute war crimes. 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. The fact remains the use of WP in civilian areas is prohibited and so the US gov'ts admission in itself creates a 'prima facie' case against them. Now if the US wants to claim a defence of stupidity that they didn't know about the side effects their 'illuminating' shells would have on the civilian populace they should do so from the dock of the world court.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes yes,.. illumination, they needed a LOT of light here..

Look at the flares... they just crashed with a bird in the sky and break in a lot of little flares turning into a rain of fire over the city, it was just an accident... or maybe they where trying to iluminate a wider area and just 1 flare wasnt enought...

 

[Bystander]

OK, folks --- this silly slapfest has spilled into the chem forum --- at which point I've got to sit through 27 minutes of crap.

The only nape and WP is from the VN clip. WP at night? Wash out any camera on the planet --- that's hot metal and bursting charge residue from a cluster munition. One illume round, maybe (looked more like thermite boiling a rocket motor), with a failed parachute hitting the ground and fizzing like a 4 July fountain (or Guy Fawkes for "john bull"), (woulda washed out the camera otherwise), little chain gun from the gunship (very nice shooting). The footage may impress the ignorant, and it doesn't have to be accurate to rattle the rabble which is what it's intended to do, but it ain't up to the standards of veracity demanded on PF, so take it elsewhere.

 

[Anttech]

So explain the burned bodies, with clothing intact?

 

[Art]

I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in 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.

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

 

[Skyhunter]

From Wikipedia

Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time.

Here is another link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

 

[Art]

From Wikipedia
Here is another link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

Which explains the eyewitness reports of gas attacks which were rubbished by the US gov't.

 

[Burnsys]

Skyhunter great link
and i think this link will end all doubts about the subject:
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf
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.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

So can we say the US army used WP for killing pourposes. and not for iluminating as others want to belive.
And this also proves that the us government was AGAIN caugth lying..

 

[russ_watters]

So can we say the US army used WP for killing pourposes. and not for iluminating as others want to belive.
And this also proves that the us government was AGAIN caugth lying..

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

 

[Art]

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

Very droll

err you were joking I presume.

 

[Burnsys]

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

Sorry russ, you must be wearing Red glasses... remove them and read again:

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.


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

 

[Evo]

OK, folks --- this silly slapfest has spilled into the chem forum --- at which point I've got to sit through 27 minutes of crap.
The only nape and WP is from the VN clip. WP at night? Wash out any camera on the planet --- that's hot metal and bursting charge residue from a cluster munition. One illume round, maybe (looked more like thermite boiling a rocket motor), with a failed parachute hitting the ground and fizzing like a 4 July fountain (or Guy Fawkes for "john bull"), (woulda washed out the camera otherwise), little chain gun from the gunship (very nice shooting). The footage may impress the ignorant, and it doesn't have to be accurate to rattle the rabble which is what it's intended to do, but it ain't up to the standards of veracity demanded on PF, so take it elsewhere.

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.

 

[Evo]

We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.

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.

 

[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.