View Full Version : U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq
Adrian II
11-08-2005, 22:09
No surprise after what we saw and heard about the way in which the media were kept away from the operation in Fallujah. Italian tv has the bodies and the American testimony to prove that the U.S. is conducting chemical warfare in Iraq. I just saw the whole documentary thanks to an Italian friend. You can download the original or the English version here: Falluja, la strage nascosta (http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/default_02112005.asp). Caution. Some of the footage is graphic. So are the loads of pictures in the Rainews24 website.
The BBC has an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm) about it, but it does not nearly cover all the facts mentioned in the documentary. The documentary also provides evidence that Mark 77, a new form of napalm, was used in the attack.
Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.
"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.
In the documentary a witness, biologist Mohamad Tareq, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
*Edited to add graphic caution
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-08-2005, 22:16
I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.
Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.
Papewaio
11-08-2005, 22:18
Weapons
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Geneva Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary 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. [1] The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol.
Not nice, but apparently legal...
Adrian II
11-08-2005, 22:19
I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.
Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.Now where did I store that ostrich smiley? https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/3959/gruebel22zc.gif
Adrian II
11-08-2005, 22:20
Not nice, but apparently legal...Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?
Divinus Arma
11-08-2005, 22:21
We have this substance for indirect fire usage. It is SOP for certain targets.
U.S. Government Marine Sergeant Battle Studies Manual (MCI 8005):
It is important to select the proper fuse and type of rounds to get maximum effect on target. Basically, high explosive rounds with variable time fuses (HE/VT) produce air bursts that are effective against troops in the open, troops in fighting holes with no overhead cover, and light vehices...etc...etc...etc... There are also several rounds designed for special purposes.They include improved conventional munitions (ICM), white phosphorous (WP), artillery delivered mines (FASCAM), etc.
This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.
Redleg would probably be a definitive authorty here and aid in dispelling rumours.
Tribesman
11-08-2005, 22:26
This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.
Yeah , you can use it for marking targets , but of course by using it to mark targets it does mean that you are also using it against those targets , catch 22 .
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-08-2005, 22:26
where did I store the dictionary meaning of "fact" smiley?
:stupido3:
Papewaio
11-08-2005, 22:38
Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?
No, but I think there is a difference between incendiary weapons and chemical weapons...
Red Harvest
11-08-2005, 22:39
AdrianII,
I don't see a need to restrict the use of white phosphorous. If you are going to bomb an area/structure, shrapnel is just as indiscriminant. These are incindiaries, not chemical weapons.
I would be shocked if we *didn't* use it. What the heck do you expect from street fighting/house clearing?
We used plenty of flamethrowers to suffocate or incinerate Japanese defenders in their caves in WWII.
Devastatin Dave
11-08-2005, 22:41
We are? Good.
We are? Good.
You'd like it if someone dropped it on your neighbourhood in twenty years when wherever you live is under occupation of some sort of evil liberal confederation?
War is so horrible...
Aurelian
11-08-2005, 22:53
I've been following this story today too.
Here's another source for the video, including the eyewitness reports by American soldiers. LINK (http://chris-floyd.com/fallujah/) I haven't had a chance to watch it yet (it's a big file), but I'll give it a download later this evening.
The US government (Dept. of State) issued a response (looks like it was in December) denying similar charges that appeared in the Arab press and in the Sunday Mirror. LINK (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html)
From the State Dept's response:
In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.
The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah...
First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003...
Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.
So, essentially:
a) A denial of napalm use.
b) A denial of the use of (napalm like) Mark-77 firebombs in Fallujah.
c) A denial that phosphorus shells were fired at enemy fighters, but agreement that they were used "very sparingly" for illumination purposes.
d) A denial that US forces have used outlawed weapons in Fallujah or Iraq... but they previously stated that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when used against military forces.
Of course, one would have to give more weight to American eyewitness testimony that these weapons were used. Looking forward (sort of) to seeing the video.
The BBC story does give some of the details.
Red Harvest
11-08-2005, 22:59
Aurelian,
Big flaw in that. They are not illegal.
My understanding was that the attack on Fallujah was pretty much a straight up fight, civilians were urged to leave. This meant the marines could use the usual armaments, which includes Willie Pete. Doesn't surprise me at all. Nasty stuff, but it's not like a poison gas. You are either hit with it or not, same as shrapnel from a normal shell, it just burns like hell afterward. If WP was used, on purpose, against civilian targets, then there is a problem, otherwise why is this news?
Awaiting Redleg's comment on this one as well.
Adrian II
11-08-2005, 23:08
AdrianII,
I don't see a need to restrict the use of white phosphorous. If you are going to bomb an area/structure, shrapnel is just as indiscriminant. These are incindiaries, not chemical weapons.Judging by the footage they were bombarding an area the size of Manhattan with clusters of phosphorus bombs, each of which kills every person in a 150 yard radius. Now I understand why civilians were burned to the bone in their beds and buried ever so quickly whilst the media were kept at a distance.
If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.
Interesting stuff as well about the 'accidental' deaths of non-embedded journalists who were working of the story of Fallujah just when they were killed. Others had their Fallujah footage destroyed. Well, we have been there before in this forum in connection with the killing of the Spanish cameraman.
White Phosphorus is standard protocal for marking targets for Airstrikes. It has a blast radius of about 50-100 meters with scrapnel going as far as other artillery rounds have been known to go - up to 400-500 meters depending on the terrian.
Will it burn a city down if used in the a way not consistent with marking targets - yep - it will burn through just about anything.
Now I won't get into the hype about the article - since I have not read the complete thing - I will only comment about what I know of standard pratice of the United States Army while I was in. Other information that might be of use.
There is no treaty that I am aware of that the United States has signed that classifies this type of munition as chemical warfare.
The use of smoke as chemical warfare is one of the negotating games that the former USSR used to when discussion Nuclear and Chemical weapons during the Cold War. It was a political point concerning all smoke muntions which the United States has several types. One being HC smoke which if its dense enough will cause you permament harm or even death.
White Phosphorus Felt Wedge - which lays a nice smoke screen quickly because of the White Phosphorus being in Felt Wedges - burns a lot slower and even thicker then the explosive shell.
White Phosphorus High Explosive - just what it means it blows up sending a large and quickly building smoke cloud. Standard use is for marking targets for aircraft, initial build of battlefield smoke screen, and for destroying enemy fuel dumps.
Now what the Mark 77 is I really can't remember because it has been a number of years since I have called in Airstrikes or planned fires on a target - what I do know is that it is not a white phosphorus based bomb - I image it is one of the new generation of fuel-air incendary bombs. Not Naplem and not white phosphorus.
Adrian II
11-08-2005, 23:34
a) A denial of napalm use.And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.
:bow:
Papewaio
11-08-2005, 23:34
Wiki is useful to get the jist of something if not the indepth accuracy:
The Mark 77 is a US 750-lb (340-kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb that carries 110 gallons (415 litres) of a fuel gel mix that is the direct successor to napalm.
Mk-77s were used by the US Marine Corps during the First Gulf War. Approximately 500 were dropped, reportedly mostly on Iraqi-constructed oil filled trenches. Thirty Mk-77s were also used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm. 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. Only the US and Russia continue to invent and use gelled fuel bombs.
This is not my area of expertise, but I do know that it is a special purpose munition.
Yeah , you can use it for marking targets , but of course by using it to mark targets it does mean that you are also using it against those targets , catch 22 .
You are for once sir, 100% correct.
And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.
:bow:
And why do you suppose I keep my comments to what I knew about the munition there Adrian its because I have not watched the documentary and have only read the news print about the documentry. In that there was some valid points and some hype. Now when I get home after work and in the morning I will watch the documentary to see if I can tell anything from it that is revelant to the discussion - until then I will stick to a factual discussion of what I know verus falling for the typical hype discussions that involve any points about Iraq.
yesdachi
11-08-2005, 23:52
Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals...
I am not completely convinced that they were all “civilians”.:inquisitive:
Night night.
Don’t forget to brush.~:)
Sjakihata
11-08-2005, 23:54
I am not completely convinced that they were all “civilians”
Would the term 'collateral damage' improve your conscience, then? Or do you believe that every citizen in Iraq to be non-civilian? If not, then how big a procentage is civilians?
At the end of a book called Operation Gomorrah, about the bombing of Hamburgh, the authour describes a seldom told story about the aftermath of an Allied raid using phosphorus bombs.
I've read many, many books about the history of war and little else compared to this for sheer horror except possibly reading about the French Army's retreat from Moscow.
There's not use me paraphrasing. Read the book and read what is one of the darkest stories ever written. It will give the truest impression of phosphorus bombing and it's consequences.
Soulforged
11-09-2005, 00:12
And now a confirmation, black on white, by the British Defence Minister. That will go down a riot in Washington, I suppose. Anyway, I am not in the least bit interested whether some Americans consider it legel to burn civilians in their beds with chemicals or what American manuals have to say on the generalities. What interests me is what really happened over there. Most comments from patrons who have not even seen the documentary are predictably irrelevant. Well, slug it out amongst yourselves. Night night.
Like I've no authority to say it's real or not, I'll just bet that this is real, seeing it in context.
I still wonder what does it matter if the weapon is legal or not, if it's chemical or not...What does it matter? Is it killing people? Is the government trying to hide it? Perhaps, but that's what matters to me.
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 00:22
If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.
That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary. ~:rolleyes:
You won't gain any sympathy from me for Fallujah. Folks had ample warning to get their butts out. The enemy had to be hit and removed. Civilians get killed in war. If you target the concentrations of the enemy or strategic targets, you can never be certain that civilians won't be killed. Doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for civilians, but some of these "civilians" were the family (and extended family) of insurgents using their own city as safe haven. If they are going to use these areas as battle zones, then the areas are going to end up destroyed, simple as that. Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.
I don´t know with whom to agree, I think there´s some truth in most statements. Well, on one hand RH is right, because I often wonder what civilians are doing in a warzone? Why don´t they flee BEFORE the enemy comes? I can´t really tell, I´m lucky and happy to have grown up in peace, I personally would just try to get out, before the bombs come falling on my house, staying there till the last minute doesn´t save my house anyway.
On the other hand, seeing those pictures of people completely burned and whatnot, I really felt sorry for them and think their deaths were most likely very painful.
Now if I say those women chose to stay there, what about their children?
And whose fault is it? the US´s for using those weapons or the mother´s for staying there with her child? and what if the US had used more conventional methods?
Had they saved lives by that or would there just be people not burned but with bullets in their heads?
Well, I don´t think I´ve got any good answers so I´ll just throw these thoughts into the round and go to sleep aswell.
Tribesman
11-09-2005, 00:50
You are for once sir, 100% correct.
I am always correct Red , you should know that by now~;)
Still , the White Phosphorous can't be that good , the Dept. of Def. just allocated (in September) $23million to improve it .
That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the insurgents started launching WP mortar rounds at coilition bases , just for target marking of course ~;)
Some silly bugger didn't have enough men (or the orders to do so) to guard the arms dump that contained crates of them , and someone managed to steal lorryloads of explosives including WP from that facility .
You won't gain any sympathy from me for Fallujah. Folks had ample warning to get their butts out. The enemy had to be hit and removed.
Oh yeah , because the operation in Fallujah was going to deliver a crippling blow to the insurgency and bring peace and stability , that worked didn't it ~:rolleyes:
How many major assaults on other towns have taken place in the last 3 months with the same aim ?
Are there now more or less insurgent attacks ? (clue .....October was really good/bad example both for number of attacks and casualties caused) .
edit to add I often wonder what civilians are doing in a warzone?
Since the whole country is a war zone then where are the civilians supposed to go ?
Gawain of Orkeny
11-09-2005, 01:10
I'm with Red Harvest on this.
Yeah me too. Red when I call you a liberal or a democrat at least you are in the mold of a Lieberman or a Truman. When push comes to shove at least you stand with America.
You are for once sir, 100% correct.
I am always correct Red , you should know that by now~;)
Still , the White Phosphorous can't be that good , the Dept. of Def. just allocated (in September) $23million to improve it .
Now here is a tough one for you - which round was it allocated for?
There is two different artillery rounds which use white phosphorous.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/smoke.htm
I would image it is for the M*@% since it had problems when I was in the service.
Kralizec
11-09-2005, 01:24
What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.
If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.
That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary. ~:rolleyes:
Indeed. Sarin is a chemical weapon. VX and mustard gas are chemical weapons. This is not. Lets try and keep the spin in check.
solypsist
11-09-2005, 01:37
US denies using white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20051108/2005-11-08T204233Z_01_MCC874503_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-WEAPONS-DC.html)
so now we have two conflicting reports. while i'm less inclined to believe in sensationalist media, the current u.s. administration doesn't have the best record when it comes to telling the truth, either.
also, the use of white phosphorus in an urban area like Falluja is banned by an international treaty: Protocol III of the CCWC. Which the United States is not a signatory of. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P)
What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.
If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.
Bingo, and there we get to the heart of the matter. Many people, including myself, would find the "my country, right or wrong" attitude slightly easier to adopt if they felt their government was being honest with them.
I got through about 10 minutes of the "documentary" and then gave up- there's no way anyone can get anything useful from that. Im not saying it's claims are false, but the film is clearly skewed- I've seen enough propaganda on both sides to recognize when Im being fed a line and not being told the whole story.
If that case is going to be made it's going to take some better evidence.
PanzerJaeger
11-09-2005, 04:04
You need some sleep AdrianII, or at least to gain an understanding of what warfare truly is. Its not pretty or noble, and people die.
Do you think someone blown up by a high explosive round would look any better, or be any less dead? Thats what war is.
I dont need combat experience to tell me that war is hell. Apparently you do.
It is so anal to post such obvious propaganda and act as if this is some sort of actual story, simply to give credence to the insurgency and take a crack at the US.
Do you just not understand the difference between chemical and incendiary, or were you trying to stir up anti-US sentiment amongst those who do not?
This piece of work deserves a big "~:rolleyes:"....
Strike For The South
11-09-2005, 04:10
Like a couple of the earlier posts said Imo if they are using it its fine but to if they are lying about just to aviod a PR nightmare they deserve jail time. We deserve to know what is happning to fighting men
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 07:24
Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).
Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).
Again, how the hell is it chemical warfare?~:handball: (that's if its true to begin with- which is less than clear.)
Crazed Rabbit
11-09-2005, 07:45
Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.
Crazed Rabbit
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 07:51
I love this attitude.
It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
That report is a lie, it is sensational
Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice
I bet before this day is over the list grows longer. ~:rolleyes:
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 08:13
Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).
That is nonsense. It is NOT chemical warfare, it is incindiary. It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud. If combustion qualifies as chemical, then you can eliminate any explosives or gun powder.
It is not a war crime. Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 08:18
It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud.You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.
Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.
I love this attitude.
It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
That report is a lie, it is sensational
Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice
I bet before this day is over the list grows longer. ~:rolleyes:
And I just love it when people deliberately mischaracterize arguments to score points.... *cough* strawman *cough*
That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.Someone is on an anti-American bent tonight....
Aurelian
11-09-2005, 08:52
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary) has an interesting article on white phosphorus. It calls white phosphorus "weight for weight" the "most effective smoke-screening agent known", and it discusses its various advantages, particularly for use in grenades and mortar bombs. I have to wonder to what degree it was being used for smoke-screening in Fallujah. It is also used as an incendiary. The State Department claims it was only used for spotting, but I can see how the PR types could be making that claim since:
"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. The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol."
Even though we haven't signed the protocol, I'm sure that the US government wouldn't want to advertise its use of white phosphorus near concentrations of civilians. Bad for our image and all. That's why they said the military only used it for aerial spotting.
If they were lying, it would be about par for the course. Apparently, as Adrian II mentioned, the US misled the UK government on its use of MK-77 firebombs:
Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The London Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position." LINK (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/7/195526/101)
Like I said, about par for the course. The US military reminds me of Maxwell Smart: "Would you believe that we've never used incendiary weapons in Iraq? No? Well, would you believe that we've only used them for aerial spotting? No? What if I told you we only used them against one insurgent standing alone in a field?"
This is from the Wikipedia article on Fallujah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah):
"Reports by the Washington Post suggest that US armed forces used white phosphorus grenades and/or artillery shells, creating walls of fire in the city. Doctors working inside Fallujah report seeing melted corpses of suspected insurgents. The use of WP ammunition was confirmed from various independent sources, including US troops who had suffered WP burns due to 'friendly fire'."
"Democracy Now!" covered this story today. They broadcast part of the documentary, and their website has a transcript. LINK (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516227)
On the issue of white phosphorus as a "chemical weapon": It's not officially considered a chemical weapon even though, strictly speaking, it is a chemical used as a weapon. It's still plenty nasty.
Reply to an earlier post:
Big flaw in that. They are not illegal. - Red Harvest
I must not have said that clearly enough:
d) A denial that US forces have used outlawed weapons in Fallujah or Iraq... but they previously stated that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when used against military forces.
By that, I meant that the State Department denied the use of "outlawed weapons"... which was a meaningless statement because they already told us that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when you use them against military targets.
I realize that they are not illegal under US law if used in that context.
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 09:17
You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.
BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.
That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.
You mean like NATO? Or liberating your nation?
It is attitudes like you are exhibiting right now that keep us wary of participating more in global treaties like this. Your abuse of the system is abhorrent to us.
Ser Clegane
11-09-2005, 09:38
BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.
From the Wikipedia article:
Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus, the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds,and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.
While white phosphorous does not seem to be officially classified as a chemical weapon in the relevant treaties, it can certainly be argued that this classification does not fully reflect the effects that white phosphorous has.
The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.
Papewaio
11-09-2005, 09:39
Lead bullets can poison you too... but they are defined as weapons that kill via hydrostatic shock not chemical
m52nickerson
11-09-2005, 09:52
I don't think the US was out to kill civilians. If some got killed it is regrettable, but this is war. They used phosphorus bombs and people got burned to death, as apposed to them dropping normal high explosives and people ending up in little pieces.
Ser Clegane
11-09-2005, 09:59
but they are defined as weapons that kill via hydrostatic shock not chemical
Yes, and if you get hit by a shell of sarin gas you are probably crushed to death and still nobody would argue that sarin is not a chemical weapon.
The relative importance of the malicious effects of the weapon certainly is an issue here and I am not so sure that the toxic component of white phosphorous as a weapon is so negligable that it warrants shrugging off any claims that it has characteristics of a chemical weapon with snappish remarks (like the one my initial comment was directed at).
I guess it can be used against troops, it seems like a pretty bad way to go but hey. If women and children were bbq'ed then it was probably used in an urban area, which is not a nice thing to do at all ~:eek:
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 13:59
Just as I thought, I can add a few more to my list.
It may be a chemical, but it's not a chemical chemical :beatnik:
Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war! https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/3959/gruebel22zc.gif
What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself... ~:confused:
Some of you don't want to know, others only want to know who lied about what so they can blame the Bush administration. I actually want to know what happened over there and why.
Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum. In the documentary there are two American Marines sitting on a couch with a beer, speaking about what they saw and heard and did in Fallujuh, pissing away their R&R, their personal security and possibly their future because they feel that the truth must be told. That, to me, is America at its best. True soldiers are civilians in uniform, aware of their civic duties not despite, but because of the uniform they wear.
Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.
U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry
3/3/2005
An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah
Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.
He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.
The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.
Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.
“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”
Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.
Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used
During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.
In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.
Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.
The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.
The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.
Link (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216)
Kagemusha
11-09-2005, 14:06
Phosphorus is a terrible weapon,but so are many others.The thing that i dont approve is that why did US had to use phosphorus in a area where they knew that population was still mostly there. I remember how the Russians were critizised off using artillery against villages in Tzechenia, how does this differ from that.I think that both US and Russians target was to kill the enemy fighters ,but they both also knew they would kill more civilians in the process then necessary. Have anyone ever thought what would happen to a person who would try to leave his home in Iraq in order to run away from an fighting area,and the insurgent fighters would notice that? He or she would be most likely be treated as an traitor and killed.
So i feel sorry for those innocent civilians in Fallujah,they had two great choises ,to die from a bullet or die burning inside a green flame.:shame:
Just as I thought, I can add a few more to my list.
It may be a chemical, but it's not a chemical chemical :beatnik:
Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war! https://img320.imageshack.us/img320/3959/gruebel22zc.gif
What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself... ~:confused:
Some of you don't want to know, others only want to know who lied about what so they can blame the Bush administration. I actually want to know what happened over there and why.
Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum. In the documentary there are two American Marines sitting on a couch with a beer, speaking about what they saw and heard and did in Fallujuh, pissing away their R&R, their personal security and possibly their future because they feel that the truth must be told. That, to me, is America at its best. True soldiers are civilians in uniform, aware of their civic duties not despite, but because of the uniform they wear.
Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.
U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry
3/3/2005
An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah
Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.
He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.
The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.
Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.
“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”
Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.
Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used
During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.
In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.
Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.
The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.
The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.
Link (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216)
I wonder if you even read this before you posted it. It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.
If your believing news articles like this as being truthful - then I will have to say that the Bush administratin is the most truthful source out there. ~:rolleyes:
Now to the video documentry.
Interesting in some ways - but several glaring problems even within the video. But I won't make comment on that since it is not revelant to the point of this thread.
So I asked myself one question regarding the video. Does it paint a picture of possible incorrect use of fuel air bombs and White Phosphorus artillery - mortar rounds? My conclusion is that it does indeed show that there was a possiblity that the military used the weapons without concern for the civilian population that remained in the city. But that wasn't what the point of Adrian's initial comments was about. What it doesn't provide evidence of is, Did the United States on purpose target civilians in the battle? Even in the Marine's re-count of shooting a car that had civilians in it - shows that they did not fire on the car with the intent to kill civilians - the car was coming at them - and they panicked.
Again the arguement that the weapons are banned - is a false one. When I was in the military working with smoke munitions it was always made perfectly clear to us what category the smoke rounds fell into - be it the HC smoke or the WP smoke. The soldier was not speaking from a point of expert knowledge - but one based upon the point the documentry wished to make. So take it with a grain of salt.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 16:20
It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.That is the whole issue here. Your government has spread so much disinformation that I am no longer inclined to believe anything they say. If you know beforehand what is propaganda and what is not, Redleg, I would like you to share your infallible sources with us.
The Iraqi report sounds as if they found a series of symptoms that they could not attribute to specific weapons, hence the official's claim that he would not exclude any possible explanation. The Italian documentary sheds a new light on these finds. For instance on the dead animals without shot wounds, the burned human corpses with no shot wounds and intact clothes.
That is the whole issue here. Your government has spread so much disinformation that I am no longer inclined to believe anything they say. If you know beforehand what is propaganda and what is not, Redleg, I would like you to share your infallible sources with us.
The Iraqi report sounds as if they found a series of symptoms that they could not attribute to specific weapons, hence the official's claim that he would not exclude any possible explanation. The Italian documentary sheds a new light on these finds. For instance on the dead animals without shot wounds, the burned human corpses with no shot wounds and intact clothes.
You ever see the effects of a fuel air explosive? or of WP on the battlefield? Not in a video - but up close and personal when in the process of policing up the battlefield, you know the kind that makes you sick to the stomach while your doing it - and remains in your memory no matter how you want to forget about it.
An interesting read on the effects of WP
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
Oh there is much I could tell you about the effects of WP and fuel air explosives - but you would probably end up calling me a war criminal - so why should I bother?
edit: its not infallable sources Adrian I just recongize BS concerning the effects of weapons when I see it.
Rodion Romanovich
11-09-2005, 16:42
While warning civilians in advance to leave an area and then using weapons of mass destruction against remaining soldiers is IMO warfare like any other, the way in which civilians are warned is a key issue here. If civilians aren't granted food, shelter and protection for the period they're leaving their homes, they're likely to not trust the attacker, and stay in their homes, which is why so many civilians have been killed in these attacks.
I think the Bush administration in general is behaving foolishly and recklessly in this matter as well as in others. Such small principles which could have meant they could have overthrown Saddam Hussein, and at the same time get all oil of Iraq, and at the same time EARN GOODWILL, but what they've done now is make most Iraqi civilians not trust them or even hate them, they've increased the pool of people with hatred enough to be possible recruits for terrorism, they've lost goodwill both inside the USA and in allied and friendly countries as well as in neutral and enemy countries. Not to mention that they're taking ridiculous casualties in Iraq despite an almost ridiculous technical and tactical superiority.
This is just another example of how the Bush administration fails to recognize the key issues in warfare and strategy: a good general seeks victory, not battle. A general who can defeat his enemy without fighting a single battle is the greatest of all generals. Now they're not only losing goodwill and creating hatred/new enemies, but also losing prestige and respect for their army by showing they're incapable strategists. They neither get the demonstration of power effect, nor the effect of trust and goodwill, which are the keys to eliminating any form of resistance, whether it's terrorism or war.
I don't think it matters what government is currently in the white house, if a weapon proves effective it will be used; tactics and politics are two different things. If I can chose between a splash of napalm or a bullet in my gut I'll know what I'll take. I am mainly concerned (if it is true, which I kind of doubt) that such heavy weapons are used in urban area's. If WP are inhuman, people should try to get it banned, in the meantime they can be used, but with a little restraint. A tankcrew that is hit with an anti-armour projectile die a very horrible death for example, but I see no reason to not should tanks just because it kind of tickles. Reports of burned people still wearing clothes? How? Such a weapon doesn't exist.
yesdachi
11-09-2005, 17:01
An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah
When ever I here any Iraq official speak (read quotes from) I think of the minister of information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/), (click for a laugh) during the beginning of the war.
"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
I don’t trust our gov to be totally honest but I sure don’t trust their gov or any of their officials to be honest either.~:handball:
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 17:01
The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.
Yes, his ill-informed comment certainly was haughty. You see, that is what I was responding to. Combustion is still the key, this is an incindiary. It is not a chemical weapon like Sarin that just happens to burn and is being intentionally misclassified with a wink and a nod.
He is making a false argument, trying to extend something that has been used for decades into the "chemical weapons" category. It is DISHONEST to do so.
Water is a chemical. So is salt. I've actually seen news reports of a "hazardous chemical spill" from an over the road tanker truck that turned out to be saltwater. (Caught the "newsflash" watching the news when the spill happened locally.) Broadening the chemical weapons definition so that it extends to anything is not going to help...unless you want nations to back away from that protocol too.
As for the toxicity of phosphorous, whoop-tee-doo. It is not a primary effect of the rounds, it is secondary...very secondary. Slow poisoning is not the effect the round is being used for.
Rodion Romanovich
11-09-2005, 17:04
I don't think it matters what government is currently in the white house, [...] tactics and politics are two different things
Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.
The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.
yesdachi
11-09-2005, 17:16
You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.
You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.
Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.
The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.
If you put it that way I have to agree (but I would like to have the use of these weapons in urban area's confirmed). And congrats with your 1000th post in hell ~:cheers:
Rodion Romanovich
11-09-2005, 19:04
You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.
You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-09-2005, 19:09
Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.
yesdachi
11-09-2005, 19:10
You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.
Makes sense to me. :bow:
And congrats on 1,000!~:cheers:
Rodion Romanovich
11-09-2005, 19:19
~:cheers: :barrel:
Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.
What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)
I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 19:46
Oh there is much I could tell you about the effects of WP and fuel air explosives - but you would probably end up calling me a war criminal - so why should I bother?You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views. Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.
If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.
It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.
Kagemusha
11-09-2005, 19:58
Btw, are there any UN observers in Iraq?
You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views.
LOL - you don't want your perspective changed the terms you use in this thread already show that.
Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.
Nope you have already stated that you believe about WP - I shot WP at enemy troops positions to mark them for aircraft and to burn an ammo dump during Desert Storm. Not hard to image what you would say about it given the nature of your comments in this thread.
If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.
Try again - your attempting a strawman arguement here - I said the comment was I wonder if you even read this before you posted it. It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.
Now care to speak about weapons effects and how it looks on the ground in an honest way - I will explain to you why the comments from the health institute are full of crap (see below) - however one first must understand how the different munitions work - the health ministry does not know - his comments are of a nature of guess work - however it seems you want to believe them lock stock and barrell.
It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.
Again care to learn how fuel air explosives work and how WP works?
If there is no air available to breath because it is being used to make the muntions work as they are intended to do, What happens to the people and animals within the area effected by the munition?
Comments about the Military hiding the fact that the weapons were used and that they might not have been used correctly are approiate in my opinion, making claims of chemical and nuclear weapons well is crap if one understands what is in the inventory of munitions and how those weapons work.
Chemical or nuclear weapons being used is extremely doubtful - the chemical weapon use would have had harmful effects on the soldiers walking through the environement after their use. Do you see anyone in Bio suits handling the causalites? Are the soldiers in the video walking around in MOPP gear?
Care to guess how long mustard gas can stay on the ground in the desert? I will give you a clue - I used to train in the desert at Dugway Utah when I was in the Utah National Guard and a few times during my active duty - guess on average how many soldiers are treated for mustard gas burns in their lungs (very minor) every training cycle - especially those that get lost and wonder into the wrong area - which is clearly marked. It would remain even longer in the shadows and cranies of a city block.
Nerve agents leave a tell on how the person dies - its an obvious death - and not something a doctor would have to guess at once he began to investigate the cause of death. Again same for mustard gas - it has a tell on how people or animals die from being exposed. Not something that would confuse a doctor.
Care to guess how the nuclear weapons work which is also being accused of being used? A simple test would confirm or deny such an allegation - however its a research your going to have to do - I don't feel like educating you any farther on the effects of weapons since its obvious that you have already reached a preconcieved notion about the events based upon speclutation, propaganda and incorrect data.
But I won't go into the nuclear weapon data as of yet because it is obvious that nukes were not used.
What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)
I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?
Aren't some soldiers using shotguns? Don't the special forces guys use hollow point rounds? Where are the press stories about this?
While we are at it, what are the insurgents doing using mosques for cover and supply? ~:rolleyes:
Meneldil
11-09-2005, 20:27
There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:
Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. (Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins and is known for its long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.)
Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.
Don't know if it will solve your arguing about either phosphorus is a chimical weapon or not.
Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.
He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
...
“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.” So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 20:48
So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP.He says he is not excluding any of them.
Sounds pretty credible to me.More credible than your government.
He says he is not excluding any of them.No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.
Read the excerpt:
He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
yesdachi
11-09-2005, 20:52
So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:
In a similar story the same guy said the US has harnessed the power of the Bogyman, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and is using it on the innocent people.~;)
Oh yah, sarcasm on.~D
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 21:01
He says he is not excluding any of them.More credible than your government.
No, not more credible. Despite Dubya's credibility problems, none of the stuff you are spouting adds up. You are trying to manufacture a chemical arms story out of traditional weapons. And yes, incindiaries are traditional, going back to greek fire and the like.
Considering how many casualties we took, an argument that we didn't do enough to protect civilians is bogus.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 21:03
No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'
Tribesman
11-09-2005, 21:04
Now here is a tough one for you - which round was it allocated for?
Wrong subject Red , the allocation isn't for improving the projectiles , it is for improving the production of the chemical .
Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.
Yep and if people were getting covered in gunpowder then set alight there would be a big outrage over it wouldn't there .~:rolleyes:
It is attitudes like you are exhibiting right now that keep us wary of participating more in global treaties like this. Your abuse of the system is abhorrent to us.
Oh the irony , defending the actions of a country who refuses to sign up to treaties on Chemical warfare yet invades another country over allegations of not complyimng with chemical warfare treaties .
Abuse of the system eh ? totally abhorrent~;)
The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'
One more time, so maybe it'll sink in.... From the article you posted:
He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 21:19
One more time, so maybe it'll sink in...Yeah, they were probably wrong on the kind of gas. I already said that the Italian documentary sheds new light on this.
The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'
Once again go back and study the effects of the different muntions that he alledged were used.
Mustard Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nerve Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nuclear Weapons leaves a tell in the environment - and on the body.
Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive. To include a shock wave that can create damage not only to the structures near the explosion - but maybe to the animals near the explosion. Doesn't take much of a shock to kill many domestic animals or birds for that matter
edit:
And finally in a fire how many die from the heat - and how many die simply form the lack of oxygen and/or smoke inhalation.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 21:27
Once again go back and study the effects of the different muntions that he alleged were used.
Mustard Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nerve Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nuclear Weapons leaves a tell in the environment - and on the body.
Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive.He was probably wrong because they didn't know what to make of the burns and other symptoms. So where do you think this leaves us with regard to those symptoms?
Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive. To include a shock wave that can create damage not only to the structures near the explosion - but maybe to the animals near the explosion. Doesn't take much of a shock to kill many domestic animals or birds for that matter
edit:
And finally in a fire how many die from the heat - and how many die simply form the lack of oxygen and/or smoke inhalation.I think that's the most likely explanation. But again, there is so much misinformation and flat out BS being thrown around on this that it's tough to get any reliable facts. I just take a heaping spoonful of common sense with these reports- why would US forces need to use chemical weapons when we have so many other numerous ways to get the job done as good or better without all the risks? It just doesnt pass the smell test.
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 21:36
(..) why would US forces need to use chemical weapons when we have so many other numerous ways to get the job done as good or better without all the risks?You don't, and that may be an important part of the explanation. You had way too few troops in the ground from the very beginning; that is why enclaves like Fallujah could flourish, get organised and arm themselves. And the chemicals may have been used to prevent unusual numbers of American casualties as a result of house to house fighting in that town.
He was probably wrong because they didn't know what to make of the burns and other symptoms. So where do you think this leaves us with regard to those symptoms?
That there was no chemical used - that the symptoms based upon smoke, fire, and no oxygen.
Calling it chemical warfare is just spin -
Again I if you want to criticize the use of WP smoke in a built up area - I will gladly argue that point - probably in a way that would surprise you.
You don't, and that may be an important part of the explanation. You had way too few troops in the ground from the very beginning; that is why enclaves like Fallujah could flourish, get organised and arm themselves. And the chemicals may have been used to prevent unusual numbers of American casualties as a result of house to house fighting in that town.
Smoke muntions are not chemical weapons. Chemical weapons leave a tell - just like nuclear.
Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?
Why are the pictures of the troops shown without the soldiers being in MOPP gear?
Why are the civilians handling the bodies not in full bio suits or chemical protection suits?
Adrian II
11-09-2005, 23:09
That there was no chemical used - that the symptoms based upon smoke, fire, and no oxygen.The wounds have to be explained. The nature of the burns in combination with the intact clothes strongly suggests the use of a chemical as the killer.
Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?Because once it has been allowed to burn out, phosphorus disappears. It says so in the link you provided: 'White phosphorus burns spontaneously in air. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears.'
Red Harvest
11-09-2005, 23:11
I guess some folks would be astonished what live steam burns can do as well...roast your flesh and leave your clothing intact. Horrid stuff.
Redleg points out what I though was obvious...lack of oxygen kills. That was part of what flame throwers were for in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
Fuel air explosives make use of the air in the atmosphere. The trick is getting a good dispersion of the fuel...then WHAM! That's why we have flare stacks to *ignite* flammables rather than just venting them...better to light them off before they disperse. That way you have a powerful steady flame, not an explosion.
Of course if like me, you've ever worked around ethylene oxide and similar compounds, and done design for distilling/handling these materials, you get an appreciation for their dangers. EO is about the worst as an industrial material since it carries its own oxygen...just waiting for a chance to go into deflagration mode. You have to be real careful how you design a reboiler for this puppy...or you will do what everyone else in the industry has done...launched their EO distillation tower like a rocket while levelling the facility. No, I'm not kidding.
Smoke muntions are not chemical weapons. Chemical weapons leave a tell - just like nuclear.
Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?
Why are the pictures of the troops shown without the soldiers being in MOPP gear?
Why are the civilians handling the bodies not in full bio suits or chemical protection suits?
Redleg, you know the answer, like I do because I know the weapons and the possible use.
Smoke munitions are not chemical but never breathe it. If you do have to stay in a room full of smoke from one, better to put your mask on. I know, a platoon had an intoxicated soldier due to a smoke grenade.
With phophorus, it burn on the contact of oxygen. So it burn completely. No need of protection against Sarin or other gas…
You know as me that most of the weapons designed to respect the letters of Geneva Conventions don’t respect the aims. No fragmentations grenades, so we have grenade with various metals and it is a pure coincidence if they explode in hundred small pieces of sharp particles due to difference of resistance to pressure… No gas, but don’t stay in a smoke of a smoke grenade. Flame throwers only against obstacle, of course, and no use of 12.5mm calibre machine gun as anti-personnel weapons… We all laughed, I remember. ~D
The wounds have to be explained. The nature of the burns in combination with the intact clothes strongly suggests the use of a chemical as the killer.
Not at all - chemical agents that are used in munitions do not leave burns - it leaves blisters or nerves completely shut down - in other words the cause of death is very obvious. Now Blood agents are a little harder to detect - but if one knows what to look for - the cause of death can be determined.
Burns mean that the weapon used was a phyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.
Because once it has been allowed to burn out, phosphorus disappears. It says so in the link you provided: 'White phosphorus burns spontaneously in air. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears.'
And now you know in your own words why it is not considered a chemical weapon. But a smoke or pyrotechnics.
solypsist
11-09-2005, 23:57
we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."
we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."
However that picking apart the definition is important - because with one its a war crime - which yours truely could be considered guilty of in a European Court. And the other one is what the United States and several other nations use Smoke munitions for.
The prestige in the global commuity was not lost because of the use of smoke in Iraq - the lose of prestige happened for other reasons.
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 00:29
Burns mean that the weapon used was a pyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.Indeed, or phosphorus. Because phosphorus burns to the bone. :bow:
Soulforged
11-10-2005, 00:38
The prestige in the global commuity was not lost because of the use of smoke in Iraq - the lose of prestige happened for other reasons.Every step counts in the big picture. The good thing to do, is just an easy one, try not to do to others what you will not do to yourself. As I know it, USA, besides the old hipocresy surrounding WMD, also alleged that Iraq was in possetion of several quantities of chemical weapons, and with the Crusaders flag they fled to Iraq to look for this. The discurs of Mr. Bush later was that the world was a better place (because he runned out of excuses). Now they tried to forbid the use of this kind of weapons, and now they're using it themselves. But correct me if I'm wrong, as part of the global community I could change my mind, even if it's in a single separated subject.
Every step counts in the big picture. The good thing to do, is just an easy one, try not to do to others what you will not do to yourself. As I know it, USA, besides the old hipocresy surrounding WMD, also alleged that Iraq was in possetion of several quantities of chemical weapons, and with the Crusaders flag they fled to Iraq to look for this. The discurs of Mr. Bush later was that the world was a better place (because he runned out of excuses). Now they tried to forbid the use of this kind of weapons, and now they're using it themselves. But correct me if I'm wrong, as part of the global community I could change my mind, even if it's in a single separated subject.
You missed the point it seems.
Papewaio
11-10-2005, 02:49
Yes, and if you get hit by a shell of sarin gas you are probably crushed to death and still nobody would argue that sarin is not a chemical weapon.
The relative importance of the malicious effects of the weapon certainly is an issue here and I am not so sure that the toxic component of white phosphorous as a weapon is so negligable that it warrants shrugging off any claims that it has characteristics of a chemical weapon with snappish remarks (like the one my initial comment was directed at).
All physical weapons are made of chemicals.
You would have to use lasers/microwaves/sonic weapons not to be using weapons made of chemicals...
Soulforged
11-10-2005, 03:26
Not at all - chemical agents that are used in munitions do not leave burns - it leaves blisters or nerves completely shut down - in other words the cause of death is very obvious. Now Blood agents are a little harder to detect - but if one knows what to look for - the cause of death can be determined.
Burns mean that the weapon used was a phyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.
Vesicant
(Blister agent) Mustard gas, Lewisite Burning or stinging of eyes and skin. Creates extreme burning pain; conjunctivitis; large fluid blisters on the skin that heal slowly, and may become infected. Vapors: 4 to 6 hours, eyes and lungs affected more rapidly; Skin: 2 to 48 hours Persistent and a contact hazard. Used to incapacitate rather than kill, overloading the medical facilities.Considered chemical weapon. Of course the effect and the use differs, but it burns.
Said this...Why is that we're discussing semantics, or definitions? The problem here is exactly the use of this weapon, beyond target marking.
For what you see in the video Redleg, can you say for what it was used? I asked someone today about this, and he said me that the WP is usually used upwards to mark flying targets, or targets in the air, but again completly ignorant about this.
Considered chemical weapon. Of course the effect and the use differs, but it burns.
Said this...Why is that we're discussing semantics, or definitions? The problem here is exactly the use of this weapon, beyond target marking.
For what you see in the video Redleg, can you say for what it was used? I asked someone today about this, and he said me that the WP is usually used upwards to mark flying targets, or targets in the air, but again completly ignorant about this.
Wrong kind of burn - the second word in that sentence is key to understanding the definition of Lewisite or as its common name Mustard Gas effects on the human body. In the case of Lewisite it is a burning sensation and a chemical burn not an actual burn from fire. Try again, there not the same. The definitions are import because of my earlier statement. Calling smoke rounds chemical warfare - is not consist with the battlefield use of smoke.
The use beyond target marking has been mentioned at least once by myself in a previous post. But here it is again. Artillery Doctrine for the use of WP is primarily for marking targets, generating battlefield smoke, and one type of the muntion (there are two types by the way) is used to destroy fuel and ammo dumps. WP hand grenades are used primarily for marking and for destruction of equipment. If the squad is carrying enough of them - I image it makes for a quick and effective smoke screen to cover them in manuever.
And the person you asked is also wrong - its not used to mark targets in the air - it is used to mark targets for aircraft - or to mark a spot on the battlefield for manuever. In other words it is often used as a reference point.
The pictures on the video and the pictures linked to the video seem to indicate to me that it was M825 smoke - which is used primarily for battlefield smoke and marking. Notice that the pictures primarily indicate an airburst of the round - which is how M825 smoke is dispersed since the WP laden felt wedges are ejected from the base of the canister. Makes for interesting picture shots at night but I don't believe M825 is all that effective for actually marking targets during the night. However it is a good use of the smoke in a night operation to obsure the night vision devices and even the night vision of the enemy since it blocks IR.
My artillery doctrine knowledge is now possiblity out of date by 5 years - but the use of M825 smoke in a city as a marking round does not seem to make a lot of sense to me. It is a great screening smoke round - since it lies a thick and wide/long smoke screen rapidily (depending upon length and width of the smoke screen in relationship to the gun line.) but as a marking round its uses is limited because of the dispersion of the felt wedges out of the canister. M825 was normally used as a smoke screen smoke when I was training with it. We primarily used M116 WP which would be a ground burst with a heavy and dense bright white smoke plume would be a better marking round.
But that is my educated guess from seeing the picture shots - to fully understand what round was used and why - I would have to hear the call for fire for the mission. Until then I don't have enough information to hazard an answer based upon facts.
Edit: As for the some of the pictures of the dead - many of those pictures are consistent with what I saw concerning combat troops killed near a fuel air explosion - but the pictures were not clear because of the video image on my computer - to much blur on the picture.
PanzerJaeger
11-10-2005, 06:11
Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum.
You are completely anti-american, and have always been that way. (Which is fine, if you'd come out and be a man about it.)
You attempted to create a story that did not exist using a video and other "evidence" that no responsible journalist would consider using.
Then when your bullshit was called by actual munitions specialists on this board, you start throwing around broad anti-american statements "Youre government bla bla bla... " It didnt take much scratching to find your real sentiments.
And then I love this bit...
we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."
Solypsis, supposed seeker of the truth and reality, moving us along. "Nothing to see here guys. Even though someone is spouting anti-american bullshit that is completely erroneous, dont question it because its not even worth it." What the ____?
I guess the truth is only important when it involves supposed Bush scandals, huh? When someone is insulting the integrity of our nation, just accept it?
I dont know whats worse, the blatant anti-americanism of Adrian or the blatant collaboration by Solypsis.
Soulforged
11-10-2005, 07:29
Wrong kind of burn - the second word in that sentence is key to understanding the definition of Lewisite or as its common name Mustard Gas effects on the human body. In the case of Lewisite it is a burning sensation and a chemical burn not an actual burn from fire. Try again, there not the same. The definitions are import because of my earlier statement. Calling smoke rounds chemical warfare - is not consist with the battlefield use of smoke.Hey that isn't fair, I clearly stated that it was a different kind of burning, well in other words, but it's OK, I knew I'll receive this kind of answer.
Thanks for the information then, I knew there was something wrong with the asnwer I got for that person.
You attempted to create a story that did not exist using a video and other "evidence" that no responsible journalist would consider using. Sure Panzer. To a "materialist" like you saying such thing should be beneath you. Don't you know that there's no single responsable journalist? Further more, all journalists here passed the same video, crediting the same facts that AdrianII stated. Now you can attempt to call everything a lie, but another thing is to support it.~:rolleyes:
Solypsis, supposed seeker of the truth and reality, moving us along. "Nothing to see here guys. Even though someone is spouting anti-american bullshit that is completely erroneous, dont question it because its not even worth it." What the ____? Huh? So you're saying that USA is not loosing prestige? WOW~:eek: Man look at the world news. Flash for you: USA is the most hated country in all modern history, and I come from the country wich has the worst actitude against "americans" so I can say it with no problems. Now if you were talking about the facts related by AdrianII, then where's the proof? It's much easier to believe in the state right Jager?
Aurelian
11-10-2005, 07:49
"Raw Story" (http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1424) just posted confirmation of some of the details of this story. Seems that "Field Artillery" magazine confirmed the use of WP in Fallujah as an anti-personnel weapon. This, of course, goes against previous US government denials... because they just lie for the heck of it sometimes. Note the highlighted description of the tactical use of WP given below:
U.S. Army publication confirms United States used incendiary weapon in Falluja
11/09/2005 @ 5:26 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The March edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication, reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white phosphorous in Fallujah, Iraq, a Daily Kos diarist has found.
"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the article's author wrote. "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."
A second publication, Infantry Magazine, also alleges that white phosphorous was used near the Iraqi city of Irbil. Newsroom sources tell RAW STORY that the New York Times will be running a short piece on the Italian documentarian whose video documented the weapon's use Thursday.
A terrifying video about the U.S. use of the weapon in Fallujah is available at Information Clearinghouse.
The U.S. has said any use of the weapon was for "lighting" purposes.
According to the Toxic Disease registry, "White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death."
Wikipedia adds, "Detonating a WP shell in a confined area (like firing into a building) will indeed cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those inside who do not or can not flee, with the additional consequence of setting the room(s) alight. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns."
Use of white phosphorus is not banned by name in any international treaty. However, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations. The United States is among several nations that are not signatories to the convention.
The PDF of the article is here.
DEVELOPING....
The second highlighted portion, which describes death from WP in confined areas due to "lung edema" might have been what the Iraqi Doctor mentioned earlier was seeing.
As we've said before, WP is not a "chemical weapon" in the technical sense, but it can apparently cause casualties that give the impression that a chemical agent was used.
In any event, the use of WP as an anti-personnel weapon in an area inhabited by civilians... while not illegal for US troops... is certainly frowned upon by international legal standards.
Aurelian
11-10-2005, 08:19
Jeebus, there's more supporting evidence.
But first, a bit on the identity of the authors of the "Field Artillery" article:
This according to Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, the authors of the article. Their article fundamentally disagrees with the statement by the U.S. State Department on the matter.
Here's the new evidence:
There are also numerous reports from embedded journalists that WP was fired on Fallujah, such as this one (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt) from the North County Times:
"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.
...
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."
Those quotes were taken from the site Live Journal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/insomnia/630212.html), and there is an interesting discussion there with a bunch of Iraq veterans (including artillery men) participating. One of the guys, kc724, a trained artillery officer, was incredulous about the use of WP because, as he stated:
"In a tactical sense using WP would be good to clear an open field, but to fire it into the city is suicide. Assuming you don't set half the city on fire, what does the army do after firing artillery into an area; the infantry moves in to clear and capture the ground. If you ever walked into an area that's been hit with WP you'll know that YOU'LL NEVER WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN, even after it's been settled for a few hours."
So, sounds pretty generically lethal to me. Of course, we have accounts of walls of flame throughout the city, and (as stated in "Field Artillery") it doesn't sound like the intent was to immediately move in and take areas, but rather to pry defenders out with WP and blow them up with HE. He also said that WP was useless for illumination at night because it screws up your night vision... which US troops would presumably have in much greater quantities than the citizens of Fallujah. So, if true, that probably scuppers the State Department's explanation that WP was only used for illumination.
So far, based on the article in "Field Artillery", the eyewitness accounts of embedded journalists, the Doctor mentioned earlier, the veterans who were in the documentary... it sounds like the use of WP as an anti-personnel weapon in an urban environment is true, and the State Department "didn't know" what it was talking about.
Kagemusha
11-10-2005, 09:10
This is exactly what i feared.
Watchman
11-10-2005, 10:02
"Use of white phosphorus is not banned by name in any international treaty. However, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations. The United States is among several nations that are not signatories to the convention."
This alone is a PR hit for the US. Other people who try to set up common frameworks of what's allowed and what's not have a habit of disliking ornery fellows who want to live by their own laws. Particularly if they're in the habit of being chronically high and mighty on moral clay legs.
Lying through their teeth doesn't help one bit.
As a side note, I can't say I'm too surprised to find the usual chorus of pro-Bush hardline apologists emphatically insisting on getting stuck on pointless details, definitions and formalities like they were in a (self-satirical) US courtroom. Now what was that winning one-liner Slick Willie let out one day ? "That depends on your definition of oral sex", wasn't it...? ~;p
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 13:46
I dont know whats worse, the blatant anti-americanism of Adrian or the blatant collaboration by Solypsist.I'm afraid your views are in a very real sense un-American. The U.S. is a free nation, not some bigger, improved version of nazi Germany.
Ja'chyra
11-10-2005, 14:35
I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical. Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.
So I would have to say that it's not CW.
On another note, the army also has to follow rules that they're not allowed to deliberately blind opponents e.g. using lasers to burn out retinas, but it is perfectly ok to shoot them in the head, go figure ~:confused:
The complete article from the Field Artillery Magazine for anyone that is interested.
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/
Ser Clegane
11-10-2005, 14:48
I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical.
Chlorine would also be a pure "element" - however, I am pretty sure that chlorine gas would be considered to be a CW (I could be wrong though)
Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.
That's probably because white phosphorous is actually a solid (under normal pressure it would evaporate at 280°C), which means that it is rather unlikely that you have some phosphorous "leakage" like you would have it for a gaseous or volatile chemical.
I'm afraid your views are in a very real sense un-American. The U.S. is a free nation, not some bigger, improved version of nazi Germany.
Wow AdrianII, who stepped on the estrogen button?
Ja'chyra
11-10-2005, 15:04
That was kind of my point Ser
Now part of the statement of Aurelian's post made me question something. The initial statements I read stated that the WP was used for marking. Which like mentioned earlier, I was trying to understand why they decided to use the M825 smoke for marking targets in a city - since it is a wide area screen not a good marking round. Which was what I believed the Military stated the rounds were used for - Marking. Now Aurelian mentioned a report where the State Department said it was used of illumination.
Well if anyone doubts him or the source that he got it from - I found the State Department statement. Notice what the web site states - kind of an oxymoron isn't.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
So now the State Department and the Military will have to explain why the statement was made. It should provide some interesting coverage in the media if the press in the United States picks up the story.
As a side note, I can't say I'm too surprised to find the usual chorus of pro-Bush hardline apologists emphatically insisting on getting stuck on pointless details, definitions and formalities like they were in a (self-satirical) US courtroom. Now what was that winning one-liner Slick Willie let out one day ? "That depends on your definition of oral sex", wasn't it...?
What do you think an internet debate is about - its geting stuck on details, definitions, and formalities. So you can run that race somewhere else. (lets see if your smart enough to figure out the reference to that one)
By the way so I guess your in the crowd that would accuse me of being a war criminal for firing M825 smoke on the battlefield to screen manuever, for firing M110 WP at a ammo dump, and M110 WP several times to mark enemy positions for aircraft.
Edit: Liked mentioned to Adrian if the issue was just about the use of smoke in a city combat operation my arguement might have surprised many of you - since I agree completely with the statement made by an artillery officer that Aurelian linked - it makes no sense to use a lot of smoke munitions in a city unless you want risk burning the city to the ground. Just like you don't use illumination rounds in a city unless your willing to risk burning it down. However when one calls it a banned weapon - that arguement is less important because of the reality of its use, its not a banned weapon - battlefield smoke is an important element to any battle.
I am embarassed I forgot the proper identification for the WP high explosive shell - its not M116 like mentioned in several posts but M110.
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 15:14
Wow AdrianII, who stepped on the estrogen button?Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock? ~;p
Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock? ~;p
Suffer. And it isn't leaking, just some water from the //dutch alert// schroef, die schoonheid word met water gesmeerd en moest alleen even aangedraaid worden, wat ben ik toch een bofkont//. And I always find the time to your balls a little rub ~D
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 15:39
And it isn't leaking, just some water from the //dutch alert// schroef, die schoonheid word met water gesmeerd en moest alleen even aangedraaid worden, wat ben ik toch een bofkont//.Wacht maar tot je boegschroeven gaan roesten. Ach, die motorsloepjes ook... ~;p
And I always find the time to your balls a little rub ~DAhhem, you mean tickle my fancy. :bow:
Wacht maar tot je boegschroeven gaan roesten. Ach, die motorsloepjes ook.
De drammer dramt door, ding is onverwoestbaar ;) Het mag dan niet snel zijn maar voor 10 euro van Amersfoort naar Amsterdam! En zeilen dat is zo'n werk joh, misschien de volgende want het is natuurlijk wel veel meer 'varen'.
Aurelian
11-10-2005, 18:05
Ahem. Here's a longer snippet from the NC Times article describing Marines dropping WP mortar fire into Fallujah LINK (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt):
Fighting from a distance
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.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
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.
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.
They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling...
Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.
Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.
Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.
Some have started to think of what happens after all the guns go silent.
"I just don't want to come home and have someone calling me a baby killer," Alexander said after firing dozens of high explosive mortar rounds into the city. "That would piss me off."
Alexander said no one has told him what the charges have hit.
yesdachi
11-10-2005, 18:40
It seems like we have used the WP rounds as a way to smoke the enemy out and if they didn’t come out they died from suffocation. Doesn’t seem like that is what it was made for but an effective alternate use. I don’t mind. I don’t like the collateral damage (I find myself caring more for the dead pets than the civilians who harbor the terrorists) but it is not like we didn’t warn the people in Fallujah or anywhere else we fight.
It would be nice if we weren’t forced to use tactics like this, I would guess our soldiers would prefer a stand-up fight but no one will stand up and fight us! The terrorists hide behind (willing IMO) human shields hoping we will be decent and not harm the innocent (whatever) civilians.
It is not very PC but I keep seeing the terrorists as bugs and WP like a bug bomb that either kills the bugs in the walls and crawlspaces or forces them out so we can smash them with a shoe.
I have no idea what smiley to use for that comment?!?
Goofball
11-10-2005, 18:49
No surprise after what we saw and heard about the way in which the media were kept away from the operation in Fallujah. Italian tv has the bodies and the American testimony to prove that the U.S. is conducting chemical warfare in Iraq. I just saw the whole documentary thanks to an Italian friend. You can download the original or the English version here: Falluja, la strage nascosta (http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/default_02112005.asp). Caution. Some of the footage is graphic. So are the loads of pictures in the Rainews24 website.
The BBC has an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm) about it, but it does not nearly cover all the facts mentioned in the documentary. The documentary also provides evidence that Mark 77, a new form of napalm, was used in the attack.
Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.
"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.
In the documentary a witness, biologist Mohamad Tareq, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
*Edited to add graphic caution
This is sensationalism at it's worst. As far as I know, every NATO country uses "Willy Pete" munitions as part of their standard arsenals. I fired WP mortar rounds myself when I was in the Canadian Army. They are not "chemical" weapons.
As far as showing photos of WP-burned bodies goes, how is a burned body any worse than one that has been ripped apart by machine gun bullets?
They are both equally disturbing.
This is sensationalism at it's worst. As far as I know, every NATO country uses "Willy Pete" munitions as part of their standard arsenals. I fired WP mortar rounds myself when I was in the Canadian Army. They are not "chemical" weapons.
As far as showing photos of WP-burned bodies goes, how is a burned body any worse than one that has been ripped apart by machine gun bullets?
They are both equally disturbing.
You know Goofball if the article and the points expressed stayed on focus about how the adminstration or more specifically the State Department attempted to deny the use of the muntions - I would agree with the point of the documentry and even with Adrian but calling WP chemical warfare is just a long stretch.
Watchman
11-10-2005, 18:57
I would actually suspect dying of WP burns (or napalm, or whatever) tends to be an even more unpleasant experience than dying of bullet holes. 'Course, can't say I've tried either...
But there's probably a reason why incendiary weapons have been so loathed and feared by everyone through the history who'we been on the receiving end of the things. People also tend to frown upon the idea of other people burning to death, wonder why ?
Kagemusha
11-10-2005, 19:00
posted by Redleg:
By the way so I guess your in the crowd that would accuse me of being a war criminal for firing M825 smoke on the battlefield to screen manuever, for firing M110 WP at a ammo dump, and M110 WP several times to mark enemy positions for aircraft.
I would not call you an war criminal for that in a million years.But you have to accept that shelling a city with phosphorus grenades,when you know that there are mostly civilians and insurgents there using them as human shields is just wrong.Like the artillery officer sayed there is no use of shelling a city with smoke munitions if you are doing clean and sweep operation.the use of phosphorus was to drive people out of the buildings and then to kill them with HE grenades.The tactic shows clearly that the commanding officer wasnt concerned a bit about the civilians in Fallujah.
Ser Clegane
11-10-2005, 19:02
This is sensationalism at it's worst. As far as I know, every NATO country uses "Willy Pete" munitions as part of their standard arsenals. I fired WP mortar rounds myself when I was in the Canadian Army. They are not "chemical" weapons.
The "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III)" (which Canada also signed and ratified) says:
Article 2
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.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
So the use of WP against pure military targets is not prohibited by the treaty - which explains why you used it (I assume that you did not use it against civilian targets).
I would not call you an war criminal for that in a million years.But you have to accept that shelling a city with phosphorus grenades,when you know that there are mostly civilians and insurgents there using them as human shields is just wrong.Like the artillery officer sayed there is no use of shelling a city with smoke munitions if you are doing clean and sweep operation.the use of phosphorus was to drive people out of the buildings and then to kill them with HE grenades.The tactic shows clearly that the commanding officer wasnt concerned a bit about the civilians in Fallujah.
Again goes to what one believes about the issue. I personally would not recommend to an infantry commander that he have the artillery shoot WP into a city - because it burns no matter what your intent is. Notice post #93 (edit: its actually 89 - need to go fill up my memory aid medicine again) where I clearly state you would be surprised about my views concerning the use of smoke in the city.
Kagemusha
11-10-2005, 19:17
Ok.Thanks for your reply Redleg.:bow:
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 19:46
They are not "chemical" weapons.Of course no weapon is inherently chemical or conventional.
If phosphorus is used to kill everyone in sight as well as everyone who is not in sight, including civilians -- as happened in the spray-bombing in Fallujah -- that is chemical warfare.
You may not appreciate the way in which the documentary presents facts and images, but I find that much less irritating than the U.S. military propaganda brought to us on a daily basis by embedded journalists and Pentagon spokespeople. For some reason I always find propaganda from those in power just that bit more nauseating. But in the end, such sentiments shouldn't cloud our vision.
Of course no weapon is inherently chemical or conventional.
You don't know of which you speak.
If phosphorus is used to kill everyone in sight as well as everyone who is not in sight, including civilians -- as happened in the spray-bombing in Fallujah -- that is chemical warfare.
So what was sprayed - White Phosphorus smoke is delivered through three means - Motar, Artillery and hand grenade. WHere is the chemical sprayer that is spraying phosphorus over the city?.
Look I can play the seminatics game just as well as you are. Again you speak without knowing about the subject. Want to know what is chemical warfare - take a look at what happen during the Iran-Iraq war that is chemical warfare.
You may not appreciate the way in which the documentary presents facts and images, but I find that much less irritating than the U.S. military propaganda brought to us on a daily basis by embedded journalists and Pentagon spokespeople. For some reason I always find propaganda from those in power just that bit more nauseating. But in the end, such sentiments shouldn't cloud our vision.
And you should stick to this point - because your other point is incorrect.
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 20:14
So what was sprayed (..)Oops. Google says spray-bombing is for painting cars, no? My bad.
I meant a dense bombardment with grenades, creating poisonous clouds with particles of phosphorus that burn to the bone. That is chemical warfare.
Watchman
11-10-2005, 20:18
I'll have to agree that I find slapping the label of "chemical weapons" on incendiaries rather odd, at least outside assorted official papers which for some pretty valid reasons need to be rather exact in their terminology.
Sort of like in the context of Vietnam I'd find it weird to call the deployement of napalm "chemical warfare" - although Agent Orange certainly qualifies.
Anyway, mincing words and getting tangled up in semantics and definitions on the topic is just beating around the bush and misses the main points.
Those are that particularly in the conditions in question are that white phosphorous is A) nasty enough stuff to raise public ire and B) sufficiently prohibited by assorted treaties and conventions (which the US has failed to ratify, which doesn't exactly help things any if you think about it) for that ire to have a decent legal basis.
That US authorities managed to stall the news this long suggests they're fully aware of both of the above, although one does wonder if whatever tactical advantage deploying WP afforded was necessary enough to justify all the PR trouble it brought. After all, the important thing in this conflict isn't winning battles by any means necessary - the US has enough advantage in firepower and so on that in practice it wins all the fights anyway, save for the succesful hit-and-run raids where the attackers manage to bug out before getting blown to bits.
No, this conflict is all about opinions.
...
...you know, I just started wondering if the whole thing was actually meant as a warning message to the resistance and their sympathizers ? "Oppose us, or harbor those who oppose us, and this is what happens" ? If so, the US must be getting pretty desperate (or frustrated) to stoop to terror tactics that low. Some critics have started wondering the same about the way they treat enemy prisoners - that the message sought after is "mess with us and we'll treat you like an animal."
If so, the machoBS hardliner crowd ought to be happy as their wishes about "getting tough" yadda yadda have actually been fulfilled... ~:handball:
Tribesman
11-10-2005, 20:24
They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
Interesting Red , ever head of a strange thing called gravity .~;)
WHere is the chemical sprayer that is spraying phosphorus over the city?.
Would that be the chemical propellant that launches the shell (except in the case of hand launched projectiles ) or would it be the chemical bursting charge that breaks up the round ?
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 20:47
Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.
Will it burn a city down if used in the a way not consistent with marking targets - yep
...you know, I just started wondering if the whole thing was actually meant as a warning message to the resistance and their sympathizers ? "Oppose us, or harbor those who oppose us, and this is what happens" ?Seems like you are right about what happened in Fallujah. Chemical warfare, meant both to incinerate and to intimidate in the longer term. The insurgents have known about this chemical attack on Fallujah since day one, because they have been very vociferous about it. The larger public was mostly in the dark since the chemical attack never made it into the official declarations.
The same intimidation protocol would apply to the U.S. policy with regard to secret interrogation centres. The insurgents know they will be tortured and maybe killed, the public is given reassurances that 'we do not torture'.
Maybe the United States' answer to asymmetrical warfare is asymmetrical publicity?
~:rolleyes:
Watchman
11-10-2005, 21:00
*shrug* In that case they ought to A) get on with the times and realize these days information will out sooner or later (think mobiles with cameras; they ought to have enough practical experience of this already) B) look at what happened to the French in Algeria back in the day. The French eventually figured out effective measures, but these in turn were so cavalierly brutal as to make the public back home recoil in horror and really start clamoring for peace.
Plus then there's the issue of what such measures do to your moral credibility and ultimately your own moral backbone. That's a damn slippery slope they're playing on, and a pretty ugly abyss at the bottom. "Go to bed with crooks, and eventually you'll wake up a crook" as it goes.
And, of course, they're giving their opponents propaganda munitions by the truckload.
Personally I think they're a bunch of idiots who're trying to make do with brutality after running out of finesse and cunning, and will eventually have the whole crap blowing up in their faces, but that's just me.
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 21:08
Personally I think they're a bunch of idiots who're trying to make do with brutality after running out of finesse and cunning, and will eventually have the whole crap blowing up in their faces, but that's just me.Personally I think they are at a loss how to deal with these insurgent movements and phenomena. So am I, by the way. And I think the brutality reflects a lack of strategic and tactical method and purpose, a lack of vision if you will. Like you said, you get only so much time to lie your way out of a failure before you are going to be caught and confronted by your own electorate.
They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
Interesting Red , ever head of a strange thing called gravity .~;)
You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on. Tsk Tsk very poor attempt here, only shows that you have no glue. (Edit: Hmm a spelling mistake saying glue instead of clue - but what the hell the word glue just might work anyway.)
You use Illuimination rounds to illuminate the enemy postions at night. You use smoke behind the enemy at night to highlight is postion, and to allow the thermals a visual block of targets behind them. Very weak Tribesman you can do much better then this.
WHere is the chemical sprayer that is spraying phosphorus over the city?.
Would that be the chemical propellant that launches the shell (except in the case of hand launched projectiles ) or would it be the chemical bursting charge that breaks up the round ?
Nope that would be the spray coming out of the politians mouth.
Nice attempt much better then you first one above. ~D
Adrian II
11-10-2005, 21:24
Interesting Red, ever head of a strange thing called gravity?
You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on.https://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9987/0116killermonkeys2cs8bi.jpg
https://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9987/0116killermonkeys2cs8bi.jpg
LOL :bow:
We must have our banter.
~:joker:
Watchman
11-10-2005, 21:48
~D
Touché.
Aurelian
11-10-2005, 22:38
Mmmmmm... fencing monkeys. (Said in Homer voice)
...you know, I just started wondering if the whole thing was actually meant as a warning message to the resistance and their sympathizers ? "Oppose us, or harbor those who oppose us, and this is what happens" ? If so, the US must be getting pretty desperate (or frustrated) to stoop to terror tactics that low. Some critics have started wondering the same about the way they treat enemy prisoners - that the message sought after is "mess with us and we'll treat you like an animal."
Yes, I think that's part of what was going on in Fallujah. They had a nest of "insurgents" under siege and they wanted to make an example out of them. We all remember the dead contractors whose bodies had been dragged around Fallujah earlier. Those images, and the casualties the Marines were experiencing, probably got the bloodlust up on our side. In one of the articles I was looking at last night they quoted a soldier as saying that they usually had to fight with the gloves on, but at Fallujah they let them take off the gloves. Since the US hasn't signed that convention banning the use of WP in civilian areas, the troops have no reason to hold back from using it in that way.
It's just like the torture. When the US government goes around saying that torture requires pain equivalent to organ failure or death, they're giving the signal that pretty much anything goes. If a prisoner dies or has "organ failure" (which would lead to death pretty quickly in prison), then you're not dealing with torture anymore, you're dealing with a guy who can't testify that he's been tortured.
Anyway, one of the worst things about Fallujah is that while they allowed civilians to evacuate, they were turning back the male population between the ages of 18 and 55. They didn't want any males of fighting age to "escape", so they forced them back into the city they were about to assault. They were testing the hands of male refugees for gunpowder residue, but they decided to send back even those people who tested negative.
"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.
Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.
"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's (search) 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night...
Once the battle ends, military officials say all surviving military-age men can expect to be tested for explosive residue, catalogued, checked against insurgent databases and interrogated about ties with the guerrillas. U.S. and Iraqi troops are in the midst of searching homes, and plan to check every house in the city for weapons. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=246764)
Then they bombed the crap out of Fallujah with airstrikes, artillery, cluster-bombs, and incendiaries. Very sweet of them.
What I don't understand is: If they were going to collect, check, and interrogate all military-age survivors after the battle... why the hell didn't they just do that to the men who tried to evacuate in the first place?
Human rights experts said Friday that American soldiers might have committed a war crime on Thursday when they sent fleeing Iraqi civilians back into Fallujah.
Citing several articles of the Geneva Conventions, the experts said recognized laws of war require military forces to protect civilians as refugees and forbid returning them to a combat zone.
"This is highly problematical conduct in terms of exposing people to grave danger by returning them to an area where fighting is going on," said Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Army prosecutor.
James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, said, "If that's what happened, it would be a war crime."
A stream of refugees, about 300 men, women and children, were detained by American soldiers as they left southern Fallujah by car and on foot. The women and children were allowed to proceed. The men were tested for any residues left by the handling of explosives. All tested negative, but they were sent back. LINK (http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/11/all_men_between_1.html)
Watchman
11-10-2005, 22:43
Ah, so it actually got that pretty down there...
Papewaio
11-10-2005, 22:55
That is just plain stupid... if the guys are going to leave peacefully, round them up and put them in a camp underguard. Find out who they are, look after them if they ain't a bad guy, get a PR coup.
Sending them back makes saying everyone who didn't leave was an insurgent a lie. Sending civilians into a strike zone would I assume if it happened be a war crime.
Red Harvest
11-10-2005, 23:06
You know, if folks like Adrian II are going to accuse us of chemical warfare, when it's not, WTF is the point? Next time, let's just kill everyone with whatever will do the job most effectively without exposing our own people to any hazard. That way, you can actually have something worth complaining about, rather than having to make crap up. We can say, "sorry, we won't do it again." Should be good enough for the U.N., works for everyone else. And it would have a powerful deterrent effect against the real enemies.
Thanks Adrian, you have helped me make up my mind about some of the weapons treaties/and world court treaties that I once thought we should sign on to. Right now, I think it best to keep this out of the hands of people like you.
Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.
Anyway, one of the worst things about Fallujah is that while they allowed civilians to evacuate, they were turning back the male population between the ages of 18 and 55. They didn't want any males of fighting age to "escape", so they forced them back into the city they were about to assault. They were testing the hands of male refugees for gunpowder residue, but they decided to send back even those people who tested negative.
Then they bombed the crap out of Fallujah with airstrikes, artillery, cluster-bombs, and incendiaries. Very sweet of them.
What I don't understand is: If they were going to collect, check, and interrogate all military-age survivors after the battle... why the hell didn't they just do that to the men who tried to evacuate in the first place?
Well this needs to be investigated not by the military but congress - if this is indeed true, the command structure of the military is at fault, and several generals need to be held accountable. Edit: And I would not let the Republicans lead it either unless it was McCain, or another one of the moderates in Congress. Somebody who would not be interested in attempting to protect the image of the United States but who is willing to get to the truth.
A completely different scenerio of facts is beginning to develop versus just the use of white phosphorus in a city.
You know, if folks like Adrian II are going to accuse us of chemical warfare, when it's not, WTF is the point? Next time, let's just kill everyone with whatever will do the job most effectively without exposing our own people to any hazard. That way, you can actually have something worth complaining about, rather than having to make crap up. We can say, "sorry, we won't do it again." Should be good enough for the U.N., works for everyone else. And it would have a powerful deterrent effect against the real enemies.
Every other nation but about three is allowed to do just this within the halls of the United Nations.
Thanks Adrian, you have helped me make up my mind about some of the weapons treaties/and world court treaties that I once thought we should sign on to. Right now, I think it best to keep this out of the hands of people like you.
You have stumbled onto the main reason why I have always been against the international courts.
Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.
Ouch a touch below the belt with that sword stroke. :duel:
Watchman
11-10-2005, 23:15
On the other hand, at least the bluehelms actually were there and when you look at it their presence kept the Serbs from finishing the siege for quite a while.
Where exactly where your proud, noble American soldiers back then ? Not doing anything terribly useful, I'll bet.
Not that citing failures of others was ever a very good defense for anything.
On the other hand, at least the bluehelms actually were there and when you look at it their presence kept the Serbs from finishing the siege for quite a while.
Where exactly where your proud, noble American soldiers back then ? Not doing anything terribly useful, I'll bet.
I think the answer to this is: keeping our American noses out of a European problem. What? You wanted us to interfere? We apparently are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. ~:rolleyes:
Watchman
11-10-2005, 23:35
Hey, waittasec...
CUT!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Nothing. Zilch. El zippo nada. And I'm smelling a rat, or rather a red herring.
Now what's this - a kindergarten sandbox hissy fit ? "Cuz you're mean we dun' wanna play wit' you anymo' and you're stupid too!" ? 'Cause that's what Harvest's post damn near amounts to.
With an added red herring about irrelevant failures decade past - or would you care to explain how exactly UN fumbling in Srebrenica relates to US troops playing dirty in Iraq a decade later ?
This whole thing has the stink of desperation about it; when you're out of arguments, try to shift the topic at any cost and resort to name-calling, is it ?
Well, consider this an official declaration of not intending to get sidetracked by such measures any further from my end. And I will add that I'm frankly disappointed.
On the other hand, at least the bluehelms actually were there and when you look at it their presence kept the Serbs from finishing the siege for quite a while.
Maybe - Maybe not.
Where exactly where your proud, noble American soldiers back then ? Not doing anything terribly useful, I'll bet.
Oh you would be surprised - I was probably doing more at the time then any member of your armed forces. Especially since I was in the military during that time period.
Not that citing failures of others was ever a very good defense for anything.
You only valid point and you should of just stuck to that.
Hey, waittasec...
CUT!
Well, consider this an official declaration of not intending to get sidetracked by such measures any further from my end. And I will add that I'm frankly disappointed.
As long as you include yourself in that disappointment. ~:eek:
Watchman
11-10-2005, 23:41
Only for taking the bait at first.
Now get back to the topic.
yesdachi
11-10-2005, 23:42
You know, if folks like Adrian II are going to accuse us of chemical warfare, when it's not, WTF is the point? Next time, let's just kill everyone with whatever will do the job most effectively without exposing our own people to any hazard. That way, you can actually have something worth complaining about, rather than having to make crap up. We can say, "sorry, we won't do it again." Should be good enough for the U.N., works for everyone else. And it would have a powerful deterrent effect against the real enemies.
Humm, ok. ~:)
Its probably a good thing that the US citizens don’t vote on things like this or half the globe would be glass.
Tribesman
11-10-2005, 23:44
You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on. Tsk Tsk very poor attempt here, only shows that you have no glue. (
Actually there was a rather cutting point to that sarcasm Red . Since you are the artillery expert can you enlighten me . Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles , see where gravity comes into it now ~;)
For air burst what is the minimum height required to ensure that all the WP is consumed before it reaches ground level (taking into consideration of course that some particles will be accelerated downwards in the blast regardless of the effects of gravity), which of course would be a very important consideration when illuminating a residential area containing civilians and civilian property .
For arrested descent projectiles there is the other issue as well , the unpredictability of the wind .
You see even with the latter there can be some real problems , a prime example of "illumination gone wrong" would be the setting fire of the Church of the Nativity , but of course they tried to blame that on someone else instead of facing up to the ballsups when incendiary/pyrotechnics are used in built up areas .
Perhaps that is why there is a move to regulate their usage under the laws of war (which you are quite fond of) .~;)
Though I do understand from this thread that you do have an issue with the use of these weapons .:bow:
Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.
Ouch a touch below the belt with that sword stroke.
Below the belt and highly innacurate , they didn't help the Serbs , but they couldn't help the Bosnians either .
That the trouble that sometimes comes with limited deployments with strict rules , the Dutch had their hands tied on that one didn't they .
Kagemusha
11-10-2005, 23:45
I dont like where this thread is going.Its disgusting to kill civilians on purpose.But i cant accuse USA as an nation of this outrage.this should be investigated and the people responsible should be punished.I think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.If US has nothing to hide what they are doing in Iraq it should be allowed.
Tribesman
11-10-2005, 23:50
think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.
They cannot , its too bloody dangerous over there , thats why they were in Jordan , oh but thats dangerous aswell isn't it ~:handball:
Kagemusha
11-10-2005, 23:54
think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.
They cannot , its too bloody dangerous over there , thats why they were in Jordan , oh but thats dangerous aswell isn't it ~:handball:
Yep life is dangerous.I have hearD that many people have also died in their homes.~;)
Hey, I like hearing the Euro point of view on world events. It alerts me to stuff that the normal US news media either overlooks or spins one way or another. I'm no big fan of this war, either in the way it was sold to us or in the way it was prosecuted (on the cheap).
But calling the use of WP munitions in Fallujah chemical warfare is just anti-American ranting. It is not chemical warfare, these are incendiary munitions. War is not nice, it wasn't in ancient times and it isn't now. Severed limbs, burnt bodies, civilian deaths, etc. are nothing new, and will always be the case.
Bringing up Bosnia was a bit off-topic (and quite the master-stroke :bow: ), but he was trying to make a point about how certain countries shouldn't assume a moral superiority over the US. I'm not saying we aren't wrong in a lot of cases here in Iraq, but he who is without sin, yada, yada, yada. Some day your countrymen may be involved in a conflict like this, and when push comes to shove, your military will use "distasteful" tactics, because every soldier and commander will prefer to lose fewer troops if possible, regardless of what the politicos say. The insurgency will not be beaten by adhering to the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
This thread seemed to have gotten past the WP hysteria, and into more plausible issues, such as the refugee males. I'm hoping this continues.
Only for taking the bait at first.
Now get back to the topic.
Tsk Tsk - is that an order - :hide:
Maybe you should go join the military. Try asking nicely next time.
Kagemusha
11-11-2005, 00:14
Good points there Drone.~:) One reason why the disgusting things in reacent wars feel even more disgusting is that the media will bring lots of it up sooner or later always.I think best way for us to learn something about this,is to watch and listen it carefully and try to avoid the disaster of war unless its absolutely necessary.:bow:
You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on. Tsk Tsk very poor attempt here, only shows that you have no glue. (
Actually there was a rather cutting point to that sarcasm Red . Since you are the artillery expert can you enlighten me . Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles , see where gravity comes into it now ~;)
Depends on what round you are speaking of - Illumination rounds have a flare that comes out of the canister on a little parachute. The parachute is suppose to drag it out of the canister. ~:eek: When the parachute does not deploy there is a problem - the predictablity of where the round is going to go - well becomes unpredictable in many ways.
For air burst what is the minimum height required to ensure that all the WP is consumed before it reaches ground level (taking into consideration of course that some particles will be accelerated downwards in the blast regardless of the effects of gravity),
Wrong type of munition - the WP in M825 is a felt wedge it is not designed to be burnt out when it hits the ground - it is ejected out of the canister by a small charge - so the alleceration is not all that great- the spin of the round is suppose to also help cause the felt wedges to eject when the base plate of the round is blown by the time fuse, the canister does an an airburst to spread out the felt wedges so that when they land the smoke builds up into a nice smoke screen. Standard height when I was in Fire direction for this round was around 50 meters. The standard time of burn - if my memory serves me correctly is about 90 seconds - you can not time it to have it burn out before it hits the ground - unless of course your going for about a 10,000 meter Height of Burst. (don't have a TFT so I can only give a WAG estimate on the HOB, but take into account rate of fall - based upon gravity ~:eek: and a 90 second burn rate and you will come up with a more accurate required HOB for what your talking about here)
M110 WP is a ground burst munition. Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump. Acceleration was based upon normal high explosive bursting rounds. The WP in this round is suppose to burn for about 45 seconds - so again to time the burst for it to be consumed before it hits the ground becomes problematic and for use as for a military purpose non extistant.
which of course would be a very important consideration when illuminating a residential area containing civilians and civilian property .
Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.
Doctrine manual extract can be found here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Appc.htm
Artillery Munitions
The field artillery provides effective systems for rapidly placing smoke on distant targets. They use HC, WP, and RP projectiles.
Use artillery-delivered smokes to--
Obscure enemy observers and target acquisition and guidance systems (for example, CLOS ATGMs).
Isolate or segregate enemy formations.
In projecting smoke onto the battlefield, the field artillery uses three types of missions: quick smoke, immediate smoke, and special smoke.
So unless doctrine has changed in the last 5 years - smoke munitions are not used to illuminate anything.
For arrested descent projectiles there is the other issue as well , the unpredictability of the wind .
Predictable and accounted for in MET messages. MET is conducted every 4 hours or more often based upon the weather. It provides a predictable and valid accounting for all weather conditions in the area of the MET station. A MET station would have been located within 25 miles of the guns.
I have fired accurately illumination and smoke rounds in winds up to 30 knots - after that it gets to the point that the use of the munitions is impractical.
You see even with the latter there can be some real problems , a prime example of "illumination gone wrong" would be the setting fire of the Church of the Nativity , but of course they tried to blame that on someone else instead of facing up to the ballsups when incendiary/pyrotechnics are used in built up areas .
You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?
Perhaps that is why there is a move to regulate their usage under the laws of war (which you are quite fond of) .~;)
There is - but its general use language.
Though I do understand from this thread that you do have an issue with the use of these weapons .:bow:
Only that you should not use smoke in a city - you never know what will happen. The problem some of you are having is that the terms used by some to include the State Department have lead you astray.
Soulforged
11-11-2005, 01:23
If US has nothing to hide what they are doing in Iraq it should be allowed.
Perhaps because they've something to hide. Or perhaps because they don't want anyone else involved, with credit to themselves. Perhaps because an stranger's introduction will make the layolty of Iraq "democratic" government move the pointer to a middle direction. Don't know, but I think it's between the three.
Red Harvest
11-11-2005, 02:20
I think the answer to this is: keeping our American noses out of a European problem. What? You wanted us to interfere? We apparently are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. ~:rolleyes:
We always are. Usually the criticism can just be shrugged off. However, when folks are trying to make a chemical weapons case out of something like this...it's just ludicrous. It has the exact opposite effect of what they want.
I don't gratuitously rub country's noses in their past, but I will bring up relevant failures to a topic. I acknowledge our own failures, but what happened with those Blue Helmets is exactly why the U.S. has to take such an active role time and again. It is also why we were painted into a corner with Iraq before the invasion.
bmolsson
11-11-2005, 02:20
If we say that they are ALL suspected illegal combatants, then there wouldn't be any problem, would there..... ~;)
Tribesman
11-11-2005, 02:22
You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?
Yeah I work for your government as you may have noticed~;)
Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters. ~D
But oh no I asked[ I]Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles [/I]
So I obviously don't know any different do I
The incident I mentioned involved magnesium based parachute flares I think .
Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.
But there is no smoke without fire is there ~;) Phosphorous burns does it not . Since the allegations are about people being burnt by phosphorous then that is the issue .
Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump.
Now that smoke would really cause quite an illumination would it not~;)
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 02:25
LOL :bow:
We must have our banter.Have at 'm, soldier! ~D
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 02:43
Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.Yes, it was. And I did not belong to the 'folks like this'. I am not afraid to criticise my own government.
You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26. Need I remind you that this is what the Bosnian Serbs were doing in Srebrenica? Of course it's up to you whether you want to belong in the same category.
Papewaio
11-11-2005, 02:44
Actually I prefer Batter to Banter.
Hmmmm Beer Battered Fish and Chips. ~:cheers:
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 03:04
I think the answer to this is: keeping our American noses out of a European problem. What? You wanted us to interfere? We apparently are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. ~:rolleyes:Europeans were asked to support the United States in Afghanistan, which they did and are still doing. However, nobody asked the U.S. to interfere in Iraq.
Actually, since 2003 the American approach to terrorism has become a danger to us all, Americans included. If the United States next turns on Iran -- homeland of shiite radicals who virtually 'invented' tactical suicide bombing during their eight year war against Iraq and who are now developing nuclear arms -- the level of escalation becomes such that entire nations will probably be 'razed' in the way of Fallujah.
You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?
Yeah I work for your government as you may have noticed~;)
Oh I almost missed that one. Very good.
Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters. ~D
But oh no I asked[ I]Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles [/I]
So I obviously don't know any different do I
The incident I mentioned involved magnesium based parachute flares I think.
Then your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions. But I am beginning to get the picture in which you are attempting to paint based upon lack of knowledge. To bad the stupid state department used the wrong descriptions abut what smoke is - smacks of either a cover-up or pure stupidity of the briefer.
Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.
But there is no smoke without fire is there ~;) Phosphorous burns does it not . Since the allegations are about people being burnt by phosphorous then that is the issue .
The use of the munition in a city was never the issue, that is only a minor side issue to me - War is war after all - the possible lie by the state department (initial issue) and the possible violation of the rules of war by some Military commanders (issue brought forward by Aurlean comments about civilians being turned back) are the real issues as far as I am concerned. The distraction of calling the munitions chemical weapons is the red herring of the discussion which I pursued down the rabbit hole to get to the real issue.
Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump.
Now that smoke would really cause quite an illumination would it not~;)
Yep it lights up the sky for several miles especially when you get to hit a divisional supply point on an artillery raid.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 03:16
Adrian, you're arguing a ridiculous case. It's like saying that using uranium based amnunition is chemical warfare because leftovers of it killed people on the Balkan years afterwards.
Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.
That's a terrible accusation you're making there, and I find it disgusting. Yes we fucked up, but we didn't lend the Serbs a hand killing them. And it wasn't the fault of the troops themselves, either.
Red Harvest
11-11-2005, 03:21
You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26.
Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?
And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.
Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 03:36
Adrian, you're arguing a ridiculous case. It's like saying that using uranium based amnunition is chemical warfare because leftovers of it killed people on the Balkan years afterwards.This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population. Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian. It was not used to illuminate or mark targets in Fallujah. It was used to 'level' the town as Red Harvest put it.
Those who maintain that everyone in Fallujah had been given 'fair warning' and was 'free' to leave, should think again. They were warned of an impending attack, not an impending Gomorrah.
Besides, what does 'free' mean in a city that is held hostage by some of the most callous warriors the Middle East has seen? Were men of fighting age really free to walk out on the insurgent occupiers who wanted them, either for their support or for their presence as human shields? Are Iraqi women free to walk out on their husbands and fathers? Are children free to walk out on their mothers? The whole notion is just surreal.
Red Harvest
11-11-2005, 03:42
That's a terrible accusation you're making there, and I find it disgusting. Yes we fucked up, but we didn't lend the Serbs a hand killing them. And it wasn't the fault of the troops themselves, either.
I didn't say the troops actually killed them. The charge is the one already levelled against them. Just handed them over on a silver platter. It was a morally repugnant thing to do. I would have been ashamed if our own troops had done it. Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses. Yes, I do find them at fault for that. Color it any way you like it, but that is why the blue helmets are not taken seriously by themselves.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 03:43
And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.
Sure, we'd all love Bush and his trigger happy ilk deciding who is and who is not directly tied to terrorists, then watch as they arbitrarily nuke middle eastern nations into oblivion ~:rolleyes:
This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population. Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian.
It wasn't the radiation of the uranium that killed those people (though it probably didn't improve their health, either) but it poisoned them through ingestion IIRC, chemicly.
Anyway...time to get some sleep now. If I can get any
This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population.
Wrong - Adrian WP rounds are not chemical weapons.
Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian. It was not used to illuminate or mark targets in Fallujah. It was used to 'level' the town as Red Harvest put it.
Again wrong - read what is written by the soldiers - they did not say level the town. It was used to drive out the fighters from their hiding places according to the links provided by Aurelian.
Those who maintain that everyone in Fallujah had been given 'fair warning' and was 'free' to leave, should think again. They were warned of an impending attack, not an impending Gomorrah.
War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.
Besides, what does 'free' mean in a city that is held hostage by some of the most callous warriors the Middle East has seen?
Good to see that your recongize that terrorists hiding behind the cover of insurgency are indeed the most callous of people.
Were men of fighting age really free to walk out on the insurgent occupiers who wanted them, either for their support or for their presence as human shields? Are Iraqi women free to walk out on their husbands and fathers? Are children free to walk out on their mothers? The whole notion is just surreal.
Indeed it is surreal. Calling munitions that are not chemical weapons - chemical weapons is just as surreal.
Soulforged
11-11-2005, 05:23
Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?Then you've a serious problem with compassion, don't need to get more complicated in logical basis.~:rolleyes:
People always look for revenge, this case is no different, that will explain the same Iraquis didn't get worried about other Iraquis. Or was it because they've enough problems already? Difficult choise...~:rolleyes:
And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.If there was...I think that the better wat to approach it is to simply remove the causant. But then again I'm not an strategic expert.
Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.So the end justify the means, even if it involves human lives? Ok that's your option, I prefer to be more human.
Tribesman
11-11-2005, 09:52
War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.
thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it , bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it , detaining medical personel thats another , killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more , denying access to Red cross/crescent officials , oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets , looting , arson , extra-judicial killings .
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency .
So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?~:confused:
Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .
It was a morally repugnant thing to do.
Yep , but unless the Netherland was willing to declare war on one side in a civil war (which is also a crime) then they were constrained by their rules of deployment . It is not the first time it has happened and unfortunately will not be the last .
War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.
thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .
War has a lot of ifs in it. So your point here is lost in the clutter that is war.
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
And what do you think war is - two sides going out in the middle of nowhere and playing pattycake.
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it ,
Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.
bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it
See above.
detaining medical personel thats another
Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.
killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more ,
Only if you captured and disarmed them.
denying access to Red cross/crescent officials ,
A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.
oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets
Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.
, looting
Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military. It seems that some had problems with how the military stopped the looting once they did take action.
, arson
Again got proof of arson -
, extra-judicial killings
Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency
Fallujah might or might not have had to be a city fight.
So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?~:confused:
Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.
War is Hell Tribesman there is no such thing as a clean war, and there is no war that doesn't have innocents caught in the middle.
Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .
Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.
Edit: Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 14:31
Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 14:46
Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.Just about everything went wrong - that is the bottom of it, I'm afraid. An all-round lack of political will, sense of urgency, diplomatic investment, military force, coordination, international support, vision. Of course those 350 Dutchbat with a dozen apc's were no match for 3000 Serbs with tanks, artillery and nothing to lose. Worst thing of all was that the air support which Dutchbat had been promised never materialised. That was when the Serbs realised they could do whatever they wanted.
The final crunch was when they gave Dutchbat a choice between surrender and a massacre of the inhabitants. And they made good on their thread when they started bombing Potocari camp where thousands of Bosnians had fled to. Of course it should not have come to that, the crucial mistakes were made far earlier. Red Harvest is absolutely right that it was nauseating debacle.
EDIT
You remember when the Serbs took some international monitors hostage, shackling some of them to lamp posts and military barracks? That is when NATO should have stopped negotiating and bombed their military headquarters to smithereens. Too bad for the hostages, but they were soldiers and they knew what they had enlisted for. And I bet the Bosnian Serbs would have caved in real fast anyway.
As it happened, the only instance of Blues fighting back was when a French batallion recaptured a bridge on the Bosnian Serbs, losing 23 men in the fight. And that was only because their representative, general Janvier, had enough clout within the UN hierarchy to bang his fist on the table. The UN as it is should never, ever be in charge of a military operation.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 15:00
Yes, but Red Harvest seems to suggest that the soldiers themselves could, but deliberately didn't prevent the tragedy. Mistakes were made even at the basest level, true, but trying to blame the whole event on 350 grunts while it was the top that made the most collosol mistakes struck a wrong chord with me.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 15:05
Yes, but Red Harvest seems to suggest that the soldiers themselves could, but deliberately didn't prevent the tragedy. Mistakes were made even at the basest level, true, but trying to blame the whole event on 350 grunts while it was the top that made the most collosol mistakes struck a wrong chord with me.Yes, but he is right that you should never allow your troops to get stuck in such a situation, unless you have no means of assisting them - means which NATO certainly had at its disposal, more than enough.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 15:09
I was more referring to this...
I didn't say the troops actually killed them. The charge is the one already levelled against them. Just handed them over on a silver platter. It was a morally repugnant thing to do. I would have been ashamed if our own troops had done it. Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses. Yes, I do find them at fault for that. Color it any way you like it, but that is why the blue helmets are not taken seriously by themselves.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 15:17
I was more referring to this...I know, but he is right that Dutchbat were part of an operation that did hand those people over on a silver platter. Let's face it. The Dutch were the lowest of the UN food chain over there, but it was their food chain. They had volunteered to participate. What were they doing there, pretending to defend tens of thousands of refugees with a few dozen apc's and one, I repeat one, heavy machine gun? And this for more than two years. The Danes, when they moved in, at least brought tanks to defend their own air strip... The Brits and French brought tanks and the French regularly used them, as well as their fighter planes, when necessary.
Think of the killer reputation the Bosnian Serbs had build for themselves during that time. I mean, how naive can you get. It was criminal neglect. That is what I wrote in my paper back then, and I still stand by it.
Kralizec
11-11-2005, 15:24
Fair enough.
scooter_the_shooter
11-11-2005, 16:27
I know, but he is right that Dutchbat were part of an operation that did hand those people over on a silver platter. Let's face it. The Dutch were the lowest of the UN food chain over there, but it was their food chain. They had volunteered to participate. What were they doing there, pretending to defend tens of thousands of refugees with a few dozen apc's and one, I repeat one, heavy machine gun? And this for more than two years. The Danes, when they moved in, at least brought tanks to defend their own air strip... The Brits and French brought tanks and the French regularly used them, as well as their fighter planes, when necessary.
Think of the killer reputation the Bosnian Serbs had build for themselves during that time. I mean, how naive can you get. It was criminal neglect. That is what I wrote in my paper back then, and I still stand by it.
Reasons like that are why I think the USA and uk should handle most the world police stuff.
Kagemusha
11-11-2005, 16:47
Reasons like that are why I think the USA and uk should handle most the world police stuff.
The Ongoing UN peacekeeping operations:
UNIMIS (Sudan)
ONUB (Burundi)
UNOCI (Cote de Ivoire)
UNMIL (Liberia)
MONUC (Congo)
UNMEE (Ethiopia and Eretria)
UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone)
MINURSO (Western Sahara)
MINUSTAH (Haiti)
UNMOGIP (India and Pakistan)
UNIFICYP (Cyprus)
UNOMIG (Georgia)
UNMIK (Kosovo)
UNDOF (Golan heights)
UNIFIL (Lebanon)
UNTSO (Middle East)
Go ahead guys.Deploy.:flybye:
Tribesman
11-11-2005, 16:58
Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.
Ah , but they were not were they , and the only flimsy evidence put forward to support the claim was that there were telephones at the hospital . Thatv doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all does it .
See above.
Yeah , see above~;)
Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.
And what other duties would medical personael be performing in a hospital ?
Only if you captured and disarmed them.
So if I capture and disarm someone you can come along and kill them~:confused:
Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military.
Yeah I just make it up as I go along and throw it out there ~:rolleyes: , but the small problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that it is detailed in your governmnets reports into actions carried out by forces under coilition authority in Fallujah .
Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.
See above~;)
Again got proof of arson -
See above~;)
Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.
No prosecutions so far .But the allegations are made by your government , I am just repeating them , see above~;)
A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.
So breaking conventions governing warfare is not a crime ~:confused:
Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.
Come on Red you must be able to recall the numbers of foriegners dead or captured , they were spectacularly low~D ~D ~D
Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.
Red you know the conventions and treaties , they would have stuck against both groups , different charges and different categories .
Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Yeah right ....hypocracy .... Yep oh look I agreed it was morally repugnent . But unless the Serbs fired at the Dutch they were not allowed to take any action were they .An absolutey crazy situation , but unfortunately it is a fact .
Anyway back toThen your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions.
Nope , magnesium illumination rounds don't burst , if they did then the parachute wouldn't work would it (unless you are talking about multiple illumination devices in a single projectile) , they stay intact , and the casing is consumed by the heat of the chemical , not an air-burst at all is it ~;p
The incident I referred to was an example of of them not being used correctly, they are supposed to burn out while still in the air arn't they , as if they hit the ground they are incendiary arn't they , so incindiary that they burn through sheet metal and you cannot use incendiaries in civilian areas can you .
Geoffrey S
11-11-2005, 17:09
Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.
Oh yeah, I loved the government stepping down several years after the fact; just went to show how spineless they were. Rule number one, never send troops to an area to perform an actual duty if you don't actually have the will to back up their presence with something substantial. The behaviour of the Dutch government in this case was disgusting, something to be ashamed of.
Dutch_guy
11-11-2005, 17:34
Oh yeah, I loved the government stepping down several years after the fact; just went to show how spineless they were
Well, it could have been worse, they could have simply denied it all and continue to run the goverment ;) I see what you mean though Geoffrey.
It wasn't one of our better actions...
:balloon2:
Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.
Ah , but they were not were they , and the only flimsy evidence put forward to support the claim was that there were telephones at the hospital . Thatv doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all does it .
Try again and mention specific hospitals - care to guess how many they found cache's in. I found two in a quick google search. So mention specific dates and events.
Unless of course you are talking about the insurgents using sucide bombs in front of hospitals.
See above.
Yeah , see above~;)
LOL - again specific information. Allegations are only allegations.
Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.
And what other duties would medical personael be performing in a hospital ?
Maybe allowing injured people to be kidnapped by insurgents for be found later to be dismembered.
Or they could be doing routine medicial treatments.
Only if you captured and disarmed them.
So if I capture and disarm someone you can come along and kill them~:confused:
It would seem so especially if you did not inform the chain of command that you left a wounded and disarmed individual behind. The media doesn't get a pass on it either.
Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military.
Yeah I just make it up as I go along and throw it out there ~:rolleyes: , but the small problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that it is detailed in your governmnets reports into actions carried out by forces under coilition authority in Fallujah .
No assumption on my part - you alledged looting - find the report - read the report and see if the soldiers who committed looting were indentified and held responsible for their violation of the code of conduct. Until then you made a generalization - which again means you just threw it out there. Check to see what it actually states and who it states the looters are. Care to guess?
Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.
See above~;)
Again got proof of arson -
See above~;)
Not good enough Tribesman your throwing out accusations wanting it to be taken as fact - no supporting evidence or even links. You do the research you present the facts - not just your verbalization of rethoric.
Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.
No prosecutions so far .But the allegations are made by your government , I am just repeating them , see above~;)
There are three that I know of - again go back and research the facts - you might be suprised since several prosecutions have happened. Here is just one of them.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=281084
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/05/27/us_soldier_acquitted_in_iraqis_death/
FORT HOOD, Texas -- An Army soldier has been cleared of killing an unarmed Iraqi he said he shot to save a fellow soldier. Staff Sgt. Shane Werst, 32, was acquitted Thursday by a jury of four soldiers and two officers. He had faced a maximum of life in prison without parole for the premeditated murder charge.
Again an allegation of no prosecutions is unfounded - since at least one has been put on trail and then acquitted.
A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.
So breaking conventions governing warfare is not a crime ~:confused:
Try again - I know its confusing for you.
Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.
Come on Red you must be able to recall the numbers of foriegners dead or captured , they were spectacularly low~D ~D ~D
which indicates that there precentage is low - however there were some now were there not.
Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.
Red you know the conventions and treaties , they would have stuck against both groups , different charges and different categories .
The Dutch soldiers acting in defense of the civilians would of not been prosecuted in the United States - only in Europe would they be prosecuted for defending unarmed civilians.
Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Yeah right ....hypocracy .... Yep oh look I agreed it was morally repugnent . But unless the Serbs fired at the Dutch they were not allowed to take any action were they .An absolutey crazy situation , but unfortunately it is a fact .
You can't have it both ways Tribesman the hypocrisy is there.
Anyway back toThen your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions.
Nope , magnesium illumination rounds don't burst , if they did then the parachute wouldn't work would it (unless you are talking about multiple illumination devices in a single projectile) , they stay intact , and the casing is consumed by the heat of the chemical , not an air-burst at all is it ~;p
The incident I referred to was an example of of them not being used correctly, they are supposed to burn out while still in the air arn't they , as if they hit the ground they are incendiary arn't they , so incindiary that they burn through sheet metal and you cannot use incendiaries in civilian areas can you .
Magnesium illumination rounds don't burst - that is new to me since part of the observation is to observe the burst of the explosive that ignites the illumination round. ~D So you can time how long the illumination will last, and to adjust the height of burst.
Care to guess how many of them I have seen used correctly that fall to the ground and burn anyway?
Again you attempt at sarcasm in regards to illumination rounds show only how little you know about them.
And illumination can be shot over civilian areas because the munition intent is for illumination not causing fires.
Papewaio
11-11-2005, 21:17
Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.
Red you know the conventions and treaties , they would have stuck against both groups , different charges and different categories .
Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Yeah right ....hypocracy .... Yep oh look I agreed it was morally repugnent . But unless the Serbs fired at the Dutch they were not allowed to take any action were they .An absolutey crazy situation , but unfortunately it is a fact .
Actually the Dutch action as far as IMDHO comes under aiding the crime. There is also no excuse that they were ordered not to do anything, if you can see a crime you have to react to it.
The Dutch if they wanted to could have protected the villagers and not let them go. Then the Serbs would have had to escalate the situation and use force to get them. The Dutch instead watched on. To use burecracy as an excuse is every bit as craven as those in WWII who claimed helping at the deathcamps was an order... war crimes are not mitigated by being ordered to do something, nor are they mitigated by being told to watch when you have the ability to counteract that.
In the end of the day the Dutch let the people they were supposed to be protecting get massacred.
The Americans at Fallujah attacked an enemy held city. As I recall incendiary devices were used against the enemy held cities in WWII.
One attacked the enemy the other aided them.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 21:52
The Dutch if they wanted to could have protected the villagers and not let them go.You mean in July of 1995, given the circumstances on the ground? Amazing. Surely you have studied the case before you passed judgement, so maybe you can elaborate.
You are no doubt aware that Dutchbat was caught between two fires. There were several thousand armed Bosnian soldiers and irregulars among the 'refugees' in Srebrenica. They had been roaming and plundering the surrounding area for several years, using the enclave as a safe haven. The 350 Dutch couldn't disarm them or keep them in, let alone keep the Bosnian Serb army out when they came to get those Bosnians in July of 1995. Many of the victims who were deported and shot by the Serbs were Bosnian soldiers. Others fought their way out and re-enlisted in Sarajevo, even though they were listed as 'missing' by the United Nations.
Papewaio
11-11-2005, 22:02
I have heard the story from 3 sides, Dutch, Bosnian and Serb... not surprising as we have all 3 groups in large numbers in Aus and they had relatives from all 3 groups in the situation...it is really one of those situations where everyone stuffed up...
To be precise I am annoyed with the Governement/Nato/UNs stance on a lot of missions where the peacekeepers get to stand by and watch. It has happened in Africa several times to.
Either don't deploy them or use them with enough support. Everytime they have had to stand on the sideline they have diluted the crediability of the UN or any other faction as a peacekeeper. No country is ever going to take the UN or Nato seriously if everytime they show up they don't act.
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 22:04
Either don't deploy them or use them with enough support.Indeed. And never, ever under UN command.
Papewaio
11-11-2005, 22:09
Unless the UN was lead by penguins...
“Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101.”
Hah, we are getting nasty, are we? By the way, it is exactly what the Serbs did to Sarajevo and all agreed it was a war crime, at this time. You encircled a town, deprived them from food and water, stop humanitarian help and shell them from above: Falluja or Sarajevo?~D
“Just handed them over on a silver platter”: You have no idea what was happening in Bosnia, do you? First, the pocket wasn’t without defence (for your information, the Muslim Officer in charge of Srebrenica is actually in The Hague for war crimes against the Serbs). The Dutch wouldn’t and couldn’t help the fall of the town, as they couldn’t stop Muslim Offensive from Srebrenica against Serbs village (the town was all except disarmed). They were not equipped for the fight. And the American forces which let the Croats to ethnically cleansing the Knin area can’t really give moral lessons, nor the French, the British who did the same. The only one who retained a little bit of honour are the Canadians…~:cheers:
Yes, but Red Harvest seems to suggest that the soldiers themselves could, but deliberately didn't prevent the tragedy: No, they couldn’t. I was there when the first offensive, the one stopped by Morillon. The Serbs were thirsty for revenge because what happened (and reason why the Muslim officer is in The Hague). Slaughter of entire villages, rapes etc. Do you know how the Serbs held in Srebrenic were treated by the Muslim? I do.
And honestly, the Serbs evacuated the young children and women. Who could have suppose they would killed thousands men and teenagers? Not me, and I was there (before), not at the time...
Reasons like that are why I think the USA and uk should handle most the world police stuff: Right, you see the result in Iraq…
~D
Adrian II
11-11-2005, 22:28
I was there when the first offensive, the one stopped by Morillon.Respect. Morillon was quite a character. I was there eight months before the surrender when the talk was all about Ukrainians replacing Dutchbat. When I asked a Ukrainian officer when this would happen, he grinned and said 'Never'. The Ukrainians were only in it for the money, they could hardly afford to pay for decent uniforms... Man, that whole operation was one big fubar.
Tribesman
11-11-2005, 23:05
Check to see what it actually states and who it states the looters are. Care to guess?
Did I say they were American soldiers Red ~;)
Not good enough Tribesman your throwing out accusations wanting it to be taken as fact
Do you doubt it ? You know the report to which I refer do you not .
There are three that I know of - again go back and research the facts - you might be suprised since several prosecutions have happened. Here is just one of them.
Again you assume that I was talking about American soldiers Red .
but the small problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that it is detailed in your governmnets reports into actions carried out by forces under coilition authority in Fallujah .
See Red , no menton of US forces is there~:handball:
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Ah even more specific in that one wasn't it ~;)
Check to see what it actually states and who it states the looters are. Care to guess?
Did I say they were American soldiers Red ~;)
LOL - I stated soldiers refering to American Soldiers since we were talking about actions of the United States Military. A nice attempt to circumvent the discussion. Your attempting to be clever - but again provide spefic information and instances of what you believe is wrong doing by collation soldiers if you wish - or in the exact method of which you stated this one - refering to my discussion about the United States Military.
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it , bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it , detaining medical personel thats another , killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more , denying access to Red cross/crescent officials , oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets , looting , arson , extra-judicial killings .
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency .
Ah , but they were not were they , and the only flimsy evidence put forward to support the claim was that there were telephones at the hospital . Thatv doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all does it .
So a good attempt to re-direct but I am not buying it. Speak in spefics there Tribesman not in generalalities unless of course you wish to become a politican.
Not good enough Tribesman your throwing out accusations wanting it to be taken as fact
Do you doubt it ? You know the report to which I refer do you not .
Ones that mention insurgents and civilians looting. Yep read that one.
There are three that I know of - again go back and research the facts - you might be suprised since several prosecutions have happened. Here is just one of them.
Again you assume that I was talking about American soldiers Red .
Again nice attempt at re-direction - but not buying it. Because even if your attempting to state all collation soldiers - the already mentioned trail shows that you are still incorrect.
but the small problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that it is detailed in your governmnets reports into actions carried out by forces under coilition authority in Fallujah .
See Red , no menton of US forces is there~:handball:
Again nice attempt - but not good enough - collation forces also implies the military of the United States. You stated no prosecutions - and again you are incorrect, even when you attempt to speak in generalities he reality of one case going to court shows that you are again incorrect. Your attempting to paint with to board of a brush and you used the wrong stroke and color.
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Ah even more specific in that one wasn't it ~;)
[/quote]
Possibly the only thing you got close to being right on with your attempt at painting with a broad brush stroke. Sometimes you get lucky when trying to cover everything in one statement.
bmolsson
11-12-2005, 09:43
You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?
Everyone knows that it's a special bullet used to shoot civilians with so they get enlightened....... ~D
Tribesman
11-12-2005, 13:21
Ones that mention insurgents and civilians looting. Yep read that one.
Just re read it Red , no mention of insurgents looting at all in there .~;)
Try again .
Again nice attempt at re-direction - but not buying it. Because even if your attempting to state all collation soldiers - the already mentioned trail shows that you are still incorrect.
But I didn't say all did I , but the fact is the report says No trials took place , and there are no publicly implemented measures being taken to prevent such incidents recurring .
Magnesium illumination rounds don't burst
no they don't do they . word games again Red~;)
You mean in July of 1995, given the circumstances on the ground? Amazing. Surely you have studied the case before you passed judgement, so maybe you can elaborate.
You are no doubt aware that Dutchbat was caught between two fires. There were several thousand armed Bosnian soldiers and irregulars among the 'refugees' in Srebrenica. They had been roaming and plundering the surrounding area for several years, using the enclave as a safe haven. The 350 Dutch couldn't disarm them or keep them in, let alone keep the Bosnian Serb army out when they came to get those Bosnians in July of 1995. Many of the victims who were deported and shot by the Serbs were Bosnian soldiers. Others fought their way out and re-enlisted in Sarajevo, even though they were listed as 'missing' by the United Nations.
The Dutch troops on the ground failed to do their duty, just as the whole command structure had failed in its duty to the Dutch.
Ones that mention insurgents and civilians looting. Yep read that one.
Just re read it Red , no mention of insurgents looting at all in there .~;)
Try again .
Provide the link - I guess you didn't catch the clue in the above sentence. Care to guess how many reports there is. One comes out weekly, and then there is the daily briefs. And yes there is even ones that state that insurgents have looted.
Again nice attempt at re-direction - but not buying it. Because even if your attempting to state all collation soldiers - the already mentioned trail shows that you are still incorrect.
But I didn't say all did I , but the fact is the report says No trials took place , and there are no publicly implemented measures being taken to prevent such incidents recurring .
Again you are incorrect - both in spefic points and in generalizations. You are not going to get out of making such a generalization by saying you didn't say that - here it is again in your own words.
thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it , bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it , detaining medical personel thats another , killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more , denying access to Red cross/crescent officials , oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets , looting , arson , extra-judicial killings .
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency .
So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?
Now face it Tribesman you made an incorrect generalization because you attempted this response when you knew I was talking about the United States Military.
But whatever. You made the generalizations above - but provide no proof of such. You put them in two seperate paragraphs, which indicates that you were seperated one statement from the other. One is specific about human rights violations, the other paragraph is generalization about combat operations. The thread is about the United States actions in Fallujah.
Very good, speak in generalizations and deny everything - your sounding more and more like a politician in this one every time.
Magnesium illumination rounds don't burst
no they don't do they . word games again Red~;)[/QUOTE]
LOL you missed the sarcasm again - the rounds do burst - they base plate of the round is blown by the time fuze on the canister, the parachute drags it out of the canister along with the spin of the canister. The magnesium then ignites with a flash which looks to the human eye very much like a burst. Which is why when the observers report that they see the illumation they report over the radio the command "Burst" so that the FDC can begin to time the illumination time.
Word games - upon word games. You made a generalization and you just don't want to admit to it.
Major Robert Dump
11-13-2005, 11:58
I think I saw David Koresh in the movie. No, wait, those were glitches in the video camera specific of that model. sorry.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 21:30
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8548707.stm
Myrddraal
03-05-2010, 21:45
Horrible stuff. Saw it on the TV news, not for the squeamish. Poor kids.
Kagemusha
03-06-2010, 07:55
More "great" benefits of depleted uranium ordinance?
CountArach
03-07-2010, 03:11
More "great" benefits of depleted uranium ordinance?
It should be a war crime.
Reminds me of a quote from Rep Jim McDermott (Quoted in Anti-Flag's song, Depleted Uranium Is A Warcrime) about talking to doctors whilst on a tour of Iraq:
"The doctor said, 'Women at the time of birth don't ask if it's a boy or a girl, they ask: Is it normal?'"
Aemilius Paulus
03-07-2010, 05:19
Ha, you people feel sorry for the Iraqis, but for once, the poor American soldiers may deserve slightly more, as they actually ride around in tanks filled with depleted uranium, as a part of their sandwich-like 3rd generation Chobham armour. :no::skull:
CountArach
03-07-2010, 06:17
Ha, you people feel sorry for the Iraqis, but for once, the poor American soldiers may deserve slightly more, as they actually ride around in tanks filled with depleted uranium, as a part of their sandwich-like 3rd generation Chobham armour. :no::skull:
The Iraqis didn't sign up for it, though. The DU shells can create a dust that gets inhaled and affects civilians and military personnel alike.
Kagemusha
03-08-2010, 08:57
Im feeling just as sorry for the US servicemen using material in their ammunition and weapons that will make them sick.
Aemilius Paulus
03-08-2010, 19:29
The Iraqis didn't sign up for it, though.
Yeah, I argued the same in another thread:
Why should we care as much about the American troops? They all willingly joined the Armed Forces, killed some people perhaps, came under the banner of an aggressor nation, a global superpower taking on a small state, and then cannot stop talking when one or two soldiers die. While the civilians are caught up in this mess and die by the trainloads as a result of the struggle...
I mean, do not get me wrong. For one, I have immense respect for vets. I am not anti-American. I am not a pacifist. But this treatment of Iraqi vs. US deaths bothers me.
Im feeling just as sorry for the US servicemen using material in their ammunition and weapons that will make them sick.
Well, they do have a choice, as CountArach pointed out. It is not like you go into the Armed Forces to prolong your life. Better die later than now.
The real problem are the DNA mutations which will affect the children of the servicemen. That is a tragedy, because the children did nto do anything. And this happens all the time -after the Vietnam vets came back, they had more than their share of birth-defect grief. I wonder how long it will take for people to figure out that about half the stuff in the Armed forces is carcinogenic/mutagenic and deposit their sperm in a sperm bank before getting enlisted.
Not only will this protect your children from the adverse effects of the various substances in the line of duty, but also help retain the sperm quality which deteriorates just as well naturally. Turns out having an older male is just as dangerous as having an older female when it comes to the conception of children, as the recent research shows.
Crazed Rabbit
03-08-2010, 19:53
Reminds me of a quote from Rep Jim McDermott (Quoted in Anti-Flag's song, Depleted Uranium Is A Warcrime) about talking to doctors whilst on a tour of Iraq:
"The doctor said, 'Women at the time of birth don't ask if it's a boy or a girl, they ask: Is it normal?'"
I don't trust a word out of that guy's mouth. He'll say anything, not to mention was convicted of violating federal wiretapping laws.
As for the story; the defect rate is disturbingly high relative to Europe. However, they don't say what the rate was before 2004, and they aren't sure what is causing the defects now. And this thread was about white phosphorous, not depleted uranium.
CR
Kagemusha
03-08-2010, 19:54
Well, they do have a choice, as CountArach pointed out. It is not like you go into the Armed Forces to prolong your life. Better die later than now.
The real problem are the DNA mutations which will affect the children of the servicemen. That is a tragedy, because the children did nto do anything. And this happens all the time -after the Vietnam vets came back, they had more than their share of birth-defect grief. I wonder how long it will take for people to figure out that about half the stuff in the Armed forces is carcinogenic/mutagenic and deposit their sperm in a sperm bank before getting enlisted.
Not only will this protect your children from the adverse effects of the various substances in the line of duty, but also help retain the sperm quality which deteriorates just as well naturally. Turns out having an older male is just as dangerous as having an older female when it comes to the conception of children, as the recent research shows.
Thank you for your reply, but i dont need an educational speech about the effects of DU, as i am completely aware of the health problems associated with it. The sad part in all this is that depleted Uranium is really not needed either in munitions nor armour. Example Tungsten provides similar effects, without so many of the health issues.
The problem is that Tungsten costs lot more then DU. So the reason for my saddness towards the health and lives of both civilians and soldiiers is that in order to save some money the US defence contractors are putting their own service men and women in harms way, while also causing unnecessary harm to civilians both with straight effects and effects causing health problems for generations to come.
So the real tragedy lies in there.
EDIT: Also CR i think we can agree that it is not white phosphorus thats causing birth defects in Jallujah? So the jump to DU is quite logical.
Myrddraal
03-09-2010, 16:36
From what I remember seeing on TV they were saying that it wasn't so much DU dust but rather that rubble from the aftermath of the attacks had been bulldozed into the river, which is an important water supply in the area.
Kagemusha
03-09-2010, 17:41
From what I remember seeing on TV they were saying that it wasn't so much DU dust but rather that rubble from the aftermath of the attacks had been bulldozed into the river, which is an important water supply in the area.
Well the investigations are still ongoing, but the abnormal rise of birthdefects are normally associated with radiation. Im sure we havent heard the last from this.:shame:
Prince Cobra
03-09-2010, 20:24
I just saw the bbc report. Children are being born handicapped... I am lost for words... There is no bigger crime than harming one's children. Disgusting!
It may seem strange I will quote Machiavelli right now for I think he had caught the nature of war "War creates criminals, peace hangs them" War is a kind of legalising murder and it is not a random fact many of those participating in war are mentally handicapped (in a way) forever. Being a hero is just a propaganda, you are in fact a victim.
A man blamed to be a cynic caught the nature of the war but still there are so many "idealists" who did not, ironic isn't it?
Kagemusha
03-09-2010, 20:58
I just saw the bbc report. Children are being born handicapped... I am lost for words... There is no bigger crime than harming one's children. Disgusting!
It may seem strange I will quote Machiavelli right now for I think he had caught the nature of war "War creates criminals, peace hangs them" War is a kind of legalising murder and it is not a random fact many of those participating in war are mentally handicapped (in a way) forever. Being a hero is just a propaganda, you are in fact a victim.
A man blamed to be a cynic caught the nature of the war but still there are so many "idealists" who did not, ironic isn't it?
I think you hit nail straight to the head so does speak, with that post.:bow:
Just reread the whole thread for old times sake. Adrian, Tribes, Redleg, Goofball, Red Harvest, and others all in top form. gah. :no:
Aemilius Paulus
03-10-2010, 00:31
Change of the guard going rough on you, eh?
Louis VI the Fat
03-10-2010, 01:43
Just reread the whole thread for old times sake. Adrian, Tribes, Redleg, Goofball, Red Harvest, and others all in top form. gah. :no:Sad, eh? Damn I miss those guys, all of them.
Agreed. Red Harvest, Gawain, Tribes, JAG...all going at it....
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.