US accused of using chemical weapons in Fallujah

[WouldBe]

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon

From that link

We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

If WP does the kind of damage claimed in the OP then why was HE used to 'take them out'?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

White phosphorous is not as immediately lethal as a proper high explosive shell, but it generates a cloud that would penetrate cover and force people out.

I don't see what your point is here - they did use white phosphorous when attacking Fallujah, that's not in doubt now.

 

[MikeMcc]

From that link

If WP does the kind of damage claimed in the OP then why was HE used to 'take them out'?

My interpretation is that WP was primarily used as a psychological weapon to get them to move into the open where the HE rounds could actually kill them.

 

[WouldBe]

White phosphorous is not as immediately lethal as a proper high explosive shell, but it generates a cloud that would penetrate cover and force people out.

I don't see what your point is here - they did use white phosphorous when attacking Fallujah, that's not in doubt now.

I've never stated they didn't use WP just the damage 'claimed' to have been done by WP.

 

[WouldBe]

My interpretation is that WP was primarily used as a psychological weapon to get them to move into the open where the HE rounds could actually kill them.

That would mean the damage done in the photo's was caused by the HE rounds and not the WP as claimed.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They're not necessarily the same people referred to in the report about the military. Or perhaps they are people who were trapped and burnt to death by the WP. There are numerous possibilities....

 

[Bigdavalad]

If WP does the kind of damage claimed in the OP then why was HE used to 'take them out'?

White phos. smoke is very irritating (we're not supposed to use it in enclosed spaces in training - no throwing it into trenches, buildings etc, we even have to be careful about throwing it in front of buildings if the wind could carry it into the building. It could be used to flush insurgents out in a similar way to tear gas or something similar could and then the HE would kill them.

 

[Barking_Mad]

A few bits and pieces worth reading........All of this can be read in snippet form here. The links on the below pieces refer to the original articles mentioned in the above piece.

According to international law, any chemical used to harm or kill people or animals is considered a chemical weapon. In the words of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons):

“Any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is prohibited behaviour.”

From US Army's "Field Artillery Magazine":
9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (…) 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. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (…)

After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle....

.....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.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake. Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

.................

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

 

[MikeMcc]

That would mean the damage done in the photo's was caused by the HE rounds and not the WP as claimed.

A possibility might also be decomposition (no-one has mentioned how long the bodies were lying around).

 

[FridgeMagnet]

White phos. smoke is very irritating (we're not supposed to use it in enclosed spaces in training - no throwing it into trenches, buildings etc, we even have to be careful about throwing it in front of buildings if the wind could carry it into the building. It could be used to flush insurgents out in a similar way to tear gas or something similar could and then the HE would kill them.

They use CS for this as well, I seem to recall.

 

[Bigdavalad]

They use CS for this as well, I seem to recall.

I've never seen it, so I have no idea. I've not heard of it being used on the frontlines, but I don't doubt it has been

 

[Groucho]

Condemnation of the US illegal use of WP in Fallujah has been front page ad headline TV news across the World...with the exception of USA and UK where it hardly warrants a mention and then as 'allegation.'

Just as well we have a 'free press' (owned by billionnaires) and an independent TV...owned by billionnaires except for the BBC...

 

[oi2002]

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

Those Vietnam era Napalm drop pics are incredible. My confidence is shaken by the key witness though; the guys has a goatie and no moustache which suggests he's gone off his meds.

Over on Armchair Generalist a CRBN guy gives his opinion that WP is not technically a chemical weapon, patriotically asserting that US soldiers just don't do bad shit but then revising his opinion slightly.

Well, evidently the Army IS using WP in a direct-fire mode against combatant targets. I'm somewhat surprised, the munition wasn't designed for that, and there is definitely the risk of collateral damage that they're ignoring. But it still isn't chemical warfare...

 

[invisibleplanet]

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.

This is the crux of the matter!

So it's FACT that US dropped DU (nuclear weaponry) rounds, and used WP & Napalm (chemical weaponry) on Iraq. Many urban-politicos knew it was true at the time despite denials. Why take so long to admit it?

What a con!
A neo-con!

 

[Rusty Nuts]

Is this place really that stupid?

What weapon is not made from chemicals?

There were no bilological weapons, no deadly gas used.

Jeeze,

What a bunch of assholes!

 

[Barking_Mad]

Is this place really that stupid?

What weapon is not made from chemicals?

There were no bilological weapons, no deadly gas used.

Jeeze,

What a bunch of assholes!

Are you really so stupid as to not be able to understand? Hmm obviously so.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is this place really that stupid?

What weapon is not made from chemicals?

There were no bilological weapons, no deadly gas used.

Jeeze,

What a bunch of assholes!

Bullets aren't made from chemicals or did you conveniently forget that? In your eyes I don't suppose it matters what weapons are used against Iraqi civilians: they're all sand ni**ers anyway - right?

 

[Bigdavalad]

Bullets aren't made from chemicals or did you conveniently forget that? In your eyes I don't suppose it matters what weapons are used against Iraqi civilians: they're all sand ni**ers anyway - right?

The explosives that make the bullet move are chemicals though

 

[nino_savatte]

The explosives that make the bullet move are chemicals though

Christ on a bike, the projectile is not made from chemicals - is it?

 

[kyser_soze]

Hey, here's an idea.

Why doesn't someone find lawyer who practices in International Law and get an actual opinion as to what constitutes a nuclear and chemical weapon and whether DU and WP actually come under those classifications.

Cos I really doubt they do.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Is this place really that stupid?

What weapon is not made from chemicals?

There were no bilological weapons, no deadly gas used.

Jeeze,

What a bunch of assholes!

So there you have it.

To paraphrase Charlton Heston, via Goldie Lookin' Chain...

"Chemical weapons don't kill people... errr, the US Marines do."

It's all perfectly clear to me now, cheers.

(Rusty Nuts, do "bilological weapons" cover people with spleen?)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The relevant Conventions, from what I was reading yesterday, talk specifically about incendiaries. Of course, the US isn't party to those in the first place.

WP is certainly poisonous and the shells generate a smoke, gas, vapour, whatever, a big cloud that kills or injures you.

I repeat though that it's an absolutely absurd situation where people in the media are criticising the US for using a weapon that they said they didn't use, rather than for absolutely wrecking the city and killing huge numbers of people with all sorts of weapons. Apparently that's okay.

 

[MikeMcc]

Hey, here's an idea.

Why doesn't someone find lawyer who practices in International Law and get an actual opinion as to what constitutes a nuclear and chemical weapon and whether DU and WP actually come under those classifications.

Cos I really doubt they do.

The present legal definition is at:

http://www.opcw.org/ (follow the menu structure through CW Convention\ARTICLES)

it can be argued that incendiary wreapons are not considered to be CWs because they do not rely on the 'toxic properties of the chemicals' (CWC Article 2 para 9(c)), nor do they directly interfere with life processes through their chemical effect since the injuries are a 'side-effect' of the chemical combustion of the incendiary (CWC Article 2 para 2).

Oh, and by the way - the US is a ratified signatory to the CWC.

 

[WouldBe]

Christ on a bike, the projectile is not made from chemicals - is it?

Of course it is. They are made of brass an filled with lead which are all chemicals just as phosphorous is a chemical.

Still doesn't make any of them chemical weapons.

 

[nino_savatte]

Of course it is. They are made of brass an filled with lead which are all chemicals just as phosphorous is a chemical.

Still doesn't make any of them chemical weapons.

Here we go again: the components of a projectile are not manufactured in the same way as a chemical compound like napalm, for instance.

Semantics and legalese, that's all this is.

 

[kyser_soze]

Semantics and legalese, that's all this is.

Yeah, well that's how the law works isn't it?

That definition that MikeMcc supplied certainly rules out the incendinary devices - the effect is NOT caused directly by the chemistry of the materials used, but rather their combination and ignition. I.e. it's not the ingredients on their own that cause the injury.

 

[WouldBe]

Here we go again: the components of a projectile are not manufactured in the same way as a chemical compound like napalm, for instance.

Semantics and legalese, that's all this is.

White phosphorous isn't a chemical compound. It's a chemical element just like lead, copper, tin and the other 100+ elements known to man.

 

[MikeMcc]

White phosphorous isn't a chemical compound. It's a chemical element just like lead, copper, tin and the other 100+ elements known to man.

Even elements form compounds (i.e. O2), the CWC doesn't care about the format on any particular chemical, just its effects when used in the role that it is intended for. It also stipulates a range of known chemicals and their precursors in a series of schedules.

 

[WouldBe]

Even elements form compounds (i.e. O2), the CWC doesn't care about the format on any particular chemical, just its effects when used in the role that it is intended for. It also stipulates a range of known chemicals and their precursors in a series of schedules.

All elements form compounds (apart from the nobel gasses) that is the nature of chemistry and O2 is still an element

If you follow the logic some people have been using then water is a chemical weapon as H2O is a chemical and it can be used to kill people i.e. drowning

 

[nino_savatte]

White phosphorous isn't a chemical compound. It's a chemical element just like lead, copper, tin and the other 100+ elements known to man.

It's an element, my mistake.

But when it is exposed to air is there not a chemical reaction that takes place?