US accused of using chemical weapons in Fallujah

[_pH_]

This thread is soundng suspiciously like Peebs going on about bombs-v-missiles on another thread (can't remember which). What type of weapon was used is irrelevant IMO; it's the effects that matter. After all, many of the civilian deaths so far have been caused by 'conventional' bombs/missiles/whatever. A death is a death, however it's caused.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well there you go. It isn't exactly conventional though, is it?

It is really.

It is a battlefield munition used by soldiers for a variety of purposes.

White Phosphorous can be used in bombs dropped from aircraft. It can be used in the form of grenades by infantry, for creating a smoke screen, destroying bunkers and vehicles, and as a means of illuminating a target.

It's certainly a very nasty weapon, and I wouldn't want to see it used against anybody, but it is still a conventional weapon with a variety of uses.

 

[nino_savatte]

This thread is soundng suspiciously like Peebs going on about bombs-v-missiles on another thread (can't remember which). What type of weapon was used is irrelevant IMO; it's the effects that matter. After all, many of the civilian deaths so far have been caused by 'conventional' bombs/missiles/whatever. A death is a death, however it's caused.

That may well be true but it doesn't alter the fact that a chemical agent was used against civilians; it is hypocritical given the fact that the US employed such a weapon and used the issue of chemical weapons, WMDs and institutionalised cruelty as excuses to invade Iraq.

 

[nino_savatte]

It is really.

It is a battlefield munition used by soldiers for a variety of purposes.

White Phosphorous can be used in bombs dropped from aircraft. It can be used in the form of grenades by infantry, for creating a smoke screen, destroying bunkers and vehicles, and as a means of illuminating a target.

It's certainly a very nasty weapon, and I wouldn't want to see it used against anybody, but it is still a conventional weapon with a variety of uses.

It's all semantics imo. It isn't the same as getting fragged though is it? Being burnt to fuck with this agent.

 

[Pilgrim]

It's all semantics imo. It isn't the same as getting fragged though is it? Being burnt to fuck with this agent.

I'm not saying that dying from White Phosphorous is any better than being fragged. Death is death, and as such is usually unwelcomed by anybody.

But the term 'chemical weapon' has a very definite meaning, and that meaning is generally considered to be poison gas/nerve agents, a form of WMD.

If you use a WP strike, then it won't have much effect beyond a comparatively small area. It will be bad, certainly, but comparatively better than using WMD.

If you start using chemical weapons, then you will create a much worse scenario all round. The area concerned can remain contaminated for months or even years after the weapons were used, whereas White Phosphorous will have burned itself out within hours or even minutes.

And if you resort to bio-weapons, then everybody suffers even worse.

 

[where to]

i saw a short news broadcast from france on this tonight and this was the lead story (a bit of a joke given whats going on there right now, but hey). they showed footage too. fucking rank shit.

i remember abu graib too, i saw that on the french news two days before they started to report it seriously in the uk. i'm guessing this will explode in the uk in the next week when (or if) the story is accepted and gains recognision around the world.

 

[elbows]

The BBC are reporting it on their website but havent covered the story on things like News at 10 or Newsnight yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm

These things arent classified as chemical weapons but incendiary arms which have long been controvertial (eg napalm)

The following factoids from the BBC story speak volumes to me:

Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

Protocol III not signed by US

 

[cybotto]

So what for you guys is a chemical weapon? What has Chlorine, zyklone B, sarin, Anthrax (bio), and all others in common?

Easy, they can be deployed from another point and will reach their target (humans) by means of nature (air, water) without being visible to their targets. say this agents don't care about their target and when dropping them over a crowded area it will kill the whole crowd and anybody else for what this agent is not meant to be. A bomb is exploding in a very well defined area and civilians knowing that hiding in their cellars or bunkers.

Do you see the difference? Even civilians hiding away will be killed by a chemical weapon and not a bomb. The person who is authorising to use a non selective weapon will no that it will not only kill fighters, it will kill people who are hiding including civilians which try to avoid any fightings.

Even when white P is not a chemical weapon it used as such (when the artical is true). Chlorine is a chemical weapon and is in our tap water, get this now! So why a chemical weapon gets deployed in every days water than? It kills bacteria and in bigger doses humans.

You can drop a ton of white P on Trafalger Square, it will fall down and burn out nicely and nobody will suffer. Or you can drop this big lump as dust on it, thats make the difference. It will spread with wind, going into National Gallerary, subway and maybe when wind is right to No. 10. Try this with a bomb or a missile.

If this news is true than the person who authorized it (not only given the order) should sit next to Hussein.

 

[tobyjug]

The Italian site links to a photogallery of the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, with photos of corpses burnt to the bone. (If you have a weak stomach, close your eyes before you click that link )

I looked through all the shots, (the one with the ghostly corpse of very obviously iffy and can be disreguarded) the rest just look like normal blast and shrapnel damage.

 

[Wess]

Does it really fucking matter whether it's a chemical weapon or not?????
Fact is, it's been used by US troops with horrific consequences for civilians. Is that not the most important point?

Exactly..
There's no point whatsoever in discussing "whether or whether it's not" a Chemical weapon. You might as well be disscusing the colour of the box it came in.

But also the U.S. refused to sign the appropriate Geneva Convention articles which prohibit this type of weapon being used.

An incendiary device, white phosphorus is used by the military to conceal troop movements with smoke, mark targets or light up combat areas. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980.
The United States did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention, a U.N. official in New York said.

Article from Reuters

...and some interesting reading on Digby's blog about this (half way down the page.)

 

[MikeMcc]

So what for you guys is a chemical weapon? What has Chlorine, zyklone B, sarin, Anthrax (bio), and all others in common?

Easy, they can be deployed from another point and will reach their target (humans) by means of nature (air, water) without being visible to their targets. say this agents don't care about their target and when dropping them over a crowded area it will kill the whole crowd and anybody else for what this agent is not meant to be. A bomb is exploding in a very well defined area and civilians knowing that hiding in their cellars or bunkers.

Do you see the difference? Even civilians hiding away will be killed by a chemical weapon and not a bomb. The person who is authorising to use a non selective weapon will no that it will not only kill fighters, it will kill people who are hiding including civilians which try to avoid any fightings.

Even when white P is not a chemical weapon it used as such (when the artical is true). Chlorine is a chemical weapon and is in our tap water, get this now! So why a chemical weapon gets deployed in every days water than? It kills bacteria and in bigger doses humans.

You can drop a ton of white P on Trafalger Square, it will fall down and burn out nicely and nobody will suffer. Or you can drop this big lump as dust on it, thats make the difference. It will spread with wind, going into National Gallerary, subway and maybe when wind is right to No. 10. Try this with a bomb or a missile.

If this news is true than the person who authorized it (not only given the order) should sit next to Hussein.

Except it's not used like that and would be ineffective if it was as it would react with the oxygen in the air virtually immediately all you would get is white smoke (which soldiers actually run through when used as a smoke screen!). It's used as a block in illuminating rounds and in some smoke grenades. The whole story is hyped-up mis-information based on very dubious 'evidence'.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Jesus there are some cunts on this thread.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm not saying that dying from White Phosphorous is any better than being fragged. Death is death, and as such is usually unwelcomed by anybody.

But the term 'chemical weapon' has a very definite meaning, and that meaning is generally considered to be poison gas/nerve agents, a form of WMD.

If you use a WP strike, then it won't have much effect beyond a comparatively small area. It will be bad, certainly, but comparatively better than using WMD.

If you start using chemical weapons, then you will create a much worse scenario all round. The area concerned can remain contaminated for months or even years after the weapons were used, whereas White Phosphorous will have burned itself out within hours or even minutes.

And if you resort to bio-weapons, then everybody suffers even worse.

No kidding but the fact remains that this particular weapon is non-conventional.

 

[nino_savatte]

So what for you guys is a chemical weapon? What has Chlorine, zyklone B, sarin, Anthrax (bio), and all others in common?

Easy, they can be deployed from another point and will reach their target (humans) by means of nature (air, water) without being visible to their targets. say this agents don't care about their target and when dropping them over a crowded area it will kill the whole crowd and anybody else for what this agent is not meant to be. A bomb is exploding in a very well defined area and civilians knowing that hiding in their cellars or bunkers.

Do you see the difference? Even civilians hiding away will be killed by a chemical weapon and not a bomb. The person who is authorising to use a non selective weapon will no that it will not only kill fighters, it will kill people who are hiding including civilians which try to avoid any fightings.

Even when white P is not a chemical weapon it used as such (when the artical is true). Chlorine is a chemical weapon and is in our tap water, get this now! So why a chemical weapon gets deployed in every days water than? It kills bacteria and in bigger doses humans.

You can drop a ton of white P on Trafalger Square, it will fall down and burn out nicely and nobody will suffer. Or you can drop this big lump as dust on it, thats make the difference. It will spread with wind, going into National Gallerary, subway and maybe when wind is right to No. 10. Try this with a bomb or a missile.

If this news is true than the person who authorized it (not only given the order) should sit next to Hussein.

My point is that White Phosporus is not a conventional weapon.

 

[MikeMcc]

My point is that White Phosporus is not a conventional weapon.

Yes it is! But AFAIK only for smoke and illumination. Go to most ranges in the UK at night and you'll see some being fired off, usually as Schermuly or trip flares. It is also used in smoke grenages.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes it is! But AFAIK only for smoke and illumination. Go to most ranges in the UK at night and you'll see some being fired off, usually as Schermuly or trip flares. It is also used in smoke grenages.

It's use in this instance is hardly conventional is it? When did British forces last use this substance (on its own) against an 'enemy'?

 

[kyser_soze]

This thread is soundng suspiciously like Peebs going on about bombs-v-missiles on another thread (can't remember which). What type of weapon was used is irrelevant IMO; it's the effects that matter. After all, many of the civilian deaths so far have been caused by 'conventional' bombs/missiles/whatever. A death is a death, however it's caused.

That may be the case, but when/if the lawyers ever get anyone into court on war crimes charges for use of X/Y it becomes very important as to how these things are classified.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hmmm, nice.

Our auld friend from the Vietnam days has also made a return. Here's a qoute that reminds me very much of Churchill's defence of the use of poison gas.

A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

White phosphorus is harmless.

Experts said that, if not removed, white phosphorus - known as Willy Pete - can burn to the bone. The fumes from phosphorus cause severe eye irritation.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article325757.ece

I see no garlands of flowers.....

 

[MikeMcc]

It's use in this instance is hardly conventional is it? When did British forces last use this substance (on its own) against an 'enemy'?

Fairly limited personal experience, but I'd say you're looking at decades ago, it's not a particularly effective incendiary because it burns out too quickly. Most artillery rounds will be HE (contact fused, proximity fused or timed). I've NEVER seen any incendiary rounds, only smoke, illumination (and tracer rounds for the rifles and MGs).

 

[nino_savatte]

Fairly limited personal experience, but I'd say you're looking at decades ago, it's not a particularly effective incendiary because it burns out too quickly. Most artillery rounds will be HE (contact fused, proximity fused or timed). I've NEVER seen any incendiary rounds, only smoke, illumination (and tracer rounds for the rifles and MGs).

It would appear that the US military has found another use for this substance; and given the teams of lawyers that the Pentagon employs to find legal loopholes, perhaps it isn't terribly surprising.

 

[WouldBe]

for example, your arm goes up in flames thanks to WP, so perhaps you might just rush to a water butt and try to douse the burning, thus inhibiting the further advance of the flames, but not suceeding in extinguishing the area covered with the WP. Would that be a possible scenario? Or someone throws a bucket of water over you, etc etc.

No it wouldn't be a possible scenario. White Phosphorous is stored under water. It only burns when exposed to oxygen in the air.

Even throwing a bucket of water over WP will extinguish it but when the water dries up it will start to burn again.

But yes, there seems to be a disparity between the intensity of the burns to the flesh and to the surrounding clothes. Where does that take you, though, WouldBe? Do you have an alternative hypothesis?

If a body is severly burnt the bone is burnt as well. The first picture in your link shows the limbs missing at joints which suggests physical separation possibly by animals, a closer inspection of the bones would reveal teeth marks if this was the case.

Decomposing bodies turn black on their own due to blood going off (think all over bruising).

 

[Khardran]

This whole thing about WP discriminating between flesh and clothes sounds completely fallacious.

And it is:

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

Linky

 

[likesfish]

white phos or instant smoke
was used in the falklands in as a hand grenade paras apprantly liked the explosions better very nasty stuff
apprantly uk forces use phosporhurus free flares etc these days.

its still does'nt count as a chemical weapon or as a WMD
chemical weapons are poison gasses or poison added to water supplys
not any old chemical used as a weapon is a chemical weapon conventinol explosives are chemical's but are not chemical weapons.
whichever journalist started this story was just being lazy or looking for a head line. US forces burn civillians with incedariy weapons while correct is not such a good headline

 

[cybotto]

The BBC are reporting it on their website but havent covered the story on things like News at 10 or Newsnight yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm

The Italian documentary, which the bbc article refers to, can be seen online and in English at:
Fallujah the hidden massacre

 

[Wess]

Fairly limited personal experience, but I'd say you're looking at decades ago, it's not a particularly effective incendiary because it burns out too quickly. Most artillery rounds will be HE (contact fused, proximity fused or timed). I've NEVER seen any incendiary rounds, only smoke, illumination (and tracer rounds for the rifles and MGs).

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist and that they are not in use.

USS Alabama hit by a white phosphorus incendiary in September 1921 Sourced from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h57000/h57483.jpg

 

[FridgeMagnet]

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon

 

[tangentlama]

white phosphorus - isn't that what Nazi Germany famously used in inhumane experiments on phosphorus burns upon concentration camp victims in the Buchenwald 'Camp'?

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1951/jouhaux-bio.html

phosphorus also ued also by Israel during it's 1980s invasion of Lebanon:

To many people, in fact, the siege of Beirut seemed gratuitous brutality ... The arsenal of weapons, unleashed in a way that has not been seen since the Vietnam War, clearly horrified those who saw the results first hand and through film and news reports from a distance. The use of cluster bombs and white phosphorus shells, a vicious weapon, was widespread.

http://www.doublestandards.org/text/rose1.html

and those experiments 1943-44:

Cruel and painful medical experiments were conducted at Buchenwald, especially in Block 46, known for its frosted windows and restricted access. Nazi physicians deliberately infected prisoners with typhus, converting their bodies into so many living test tubes, kept alive only as convenient hosts for the virus. Doctors then carefully observed the progress of the disease in order to help evaluate potential vaccines. Some six hundred men died from such infections. In addition, Russian POWs were deliberately burned with phosphorus to observe their reactions to drugs. Those who survived these heinous tests, or otherwise outlived their usefulness, were often murdered with injections of phenol.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/hnn.us/

 

[maomao]

This whole thing about WP discriminating between flesh and clothes sounds completely fallacious.

And it is:

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

Linky

If you look at the photos properly, most of the intact clothes seem to have been draped across the bodies after the event. There is one that appears to be wearing a t-shirt but I think it's just sticking on top of the body rather than actually on the person.

 

[MikeMcc]

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon

Thanks for that, I does show that I was incorrect about use of WP as an incendiary. Though I still think it's still a hell of a leap to start describing them as chemical weapons or WMDs

 

[Barking_Mad]

Its worth gong back and looking at previous stuff on this subject

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

and

here

Link to story on use of firebombs

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad. Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines' race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use. What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons. Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.