US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Saddam for using chemical weapons on his civilians - the United States for using an incedary on enemy positions within an area where there was known to be civilians.

Hmmm would that be incendiaries properly used .
And saddam was using weapons against civilian areas that contained domestic terrorists and foriegn fighters as well as civilians

---

Now how many times have I stated that they were probably used - oh wait I haven't.

Quote:

---

but to call it a chemical weapon in the form that the United States uses it in artillery and mortar shells is incorrect.

Were they properly used Red ? if not then all your arguements about the correct designation of a chemical compound when it is properly used is just a smoke screen (pardon the pun) .

---

Again - have I stated that the rounds were used in accordance with the rules regulating incendiaries - oh wait I haven't. Calling an incednfiary a chemical round is incorrect.

So the smoke screen is yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again - have I stated that the rounds were used in accordance with the rules regulating incendiaries - oh wait I haven't. Calling an incednfiary a chemical round is incorrect.

---

But in your opinion were they?~:confused: Or not. That's pretty simple and will almost end with this pointless discussion no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Ok Redleg, lets try to understand what exactly we are disagreeing about, and whether there is some common ground here.

Firstly, I am not trying to call you a war criminal. In fact, we seem to be in agreement (correct me if I am wrong) on a few things:

---

Okay I am game

Quote:

---

1. When WP is used to mark targets, it is not a chemical weapon.

---

When it is used to mark targets it is the correct use of the incendary munition.

Quote:

---

2. There are some uses of WP that would qualify it as a chemical weapon (when used as an incendiary, for example).

---

Not at all - in the incident your attempting - it is being used as an incendiary - which is the correct application of the round. Now where and what the target is can be a violation of the agreements signed.

Quote:

---

3. There are other uses where it is debatable whether WP could/should be considered a chemical weapon.

---

White phosphorous is a smoke munition or an incendiary - nothing more.

Quote:

---

Now, I am assuming we are in agreement so far.

---

Nope

Quote:

---

Are you arguing, then, that the use of WP by American troops in Fallujah etc. was #3 rather than #2? Please clarify.

---

If the report that Aurelian linked is correct then the incendiary rounds fired into the Fallujah are a possible violation of the 1980 agreement already linked about firing incendiaries into a civilian occupied area. Since they turned civilians back into the combat zone - the hands of the United States should of be constraint to only engaging postivily identified enemy combatants. Area fire weapons have a tendency to effect anyone within the effective radius of the munition.

Quote:

---

For my part, it seems to me that evidence suggests US troops have used WP in an illegal fashion, namely, as an incendiary to 'root out' terrorists when normal rounds proved ineffectual.

---

That we are in agreement - not because of the enemy being in the city - but because civilians were known to be in the area.

Quote:

---

Is there anything I've stated here that you would disagree with?

---

Done -

For white phosphorous to be considered a chemical agent - it has to be delivered in a means that the rounds do not function as incendaries or smoke munitions.

Some of the posters here are focusing on calling it a chemical weapon - and not on the actual possible violations of war. That being the use of an incendary within a civilian occupied area - and the possible forcing civilians who were acting as refugees back into the combat area.


Again - I am waiting on the European's to come to the United States and arrest me for shooting White Phosporous rounds at the enemy during 1991 - because if you think its a chemical weapon - then you must continue with the strawman arguement and call for the arrest of all soldiers who have ever fired the round at an enemy target.

Plus your validating the reasons for the invasion because Iraq also had White Phosporous muntions with the arguement of calling it a chemical munition. (another strawman for your arguement about labeling white phosporous as a chemical munition.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

But in your opinion were they?~:confused: Or not. That's pretty simple and will almost end with this pointless discussion no?

---

Oh I have stated exactly what I think about firing incendaries into a location where it is know to consist of mainly civilians. However calling the muntion a chemical round is still incorrect no matter how you attempt to dice it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh I have stated exactly what I think about firing incendaries into a location where it is know to consist of mainly civilians. However calling the muntion a chemical round is still incorrect no matter how you attempt to dice it.

---

Whatever, that was the point of the discussion, not the classification of white phosporus, wich appears to be circumstancial at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Whatever, that was the point of the discussion, not the classification of white phosporus, wich appears to be circumstancial at best.

---

Then your missing the arguement that Adrian and the rest are doing - they are not focusing on the real issue - but the issue of it being a chemical weapon - which would be incorrect - it is an incendiary.

White phosphorous is a smoke munition or an incendiary - nothing more.

Oh but there is more isn't there , when it is used as a psycological weapon .
Just as , on a slightly different topic , burning bodies can be done for hygenic reasons , but doing it or using it for psycological effect is a no no .

Now how many times have I stated that they were probably used - oh wait I haven't.

Properly Red , Properly~;) check what you are quoting :bow:

Area fire weapons have a tendency to effect anyone within the effective radius of the munition.

Wow thats a blast from the past , remember the topic on AC-130s , or the use of tank rounds to "obtain a better view through a crowd"~D

edit to add ,they are not focusing on the real issue - but the issue of it being a chemical weapon - which would be incorrect - it is an incendiary.

Yes but an incendiary can be a chemical weapon , as can a smoke generation round , and your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

White phosphorous is a smoke munition or an incendiary - nothing more.

Oh but there is more isn't there , when it is used as a psycological weapon .
Just as , on a slightly different topic , burning bodies can be done for hygenic reasons , but doing it or using it for psycological effect is a no no .

---

Its an incendiary muntion - the psycological effect does not make it a no-no. We have already discussed what makes it a no-no - using it in an area where civilians are known to be is the no-no

Quote:

---

Now how many times have I stated that they were probably used - oh wait I haven't.

Properly Red , Properly~;) check what you are quoting :bow:

---

Oh I have - the munition were used in a city - which I have stated I would not have done.

Quote:

---

Area fire weapons have a tendency to effect anyone within the effective radius of the munition.

Wow thats a blast from the past , remember the topic on AC-130s , or the use of tank rounds to "obtain a better view through a crowd"~D

---

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

Quote:

---

edit to add ,they are not focusing on the real issue - but the issue of it being a chemical weapon - which would be incorrect - it is an incendiary.

Yes but an incendiary can be a chemical weapon , as can a smoke generation round , and your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .

---

Notice your terms here Tribesman the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary. Again focusing on calling it a chemical weapon ignores the real issue concerning the use of an incendiary in an area were civilians were known to be - since it seems according to the article Aurelin posted that civilians were turned back to the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again focusing on calling it a chemical weapon ignores the real issue concerning the use of an incendiary in an area were civilians were known to be - since it seems according to the article Aurelin posted that civilians were turned back to the city.

---

I agree that the report is disturbing, but the sorry truth is that tens of thousands didn't even try to leave, possibly because they were held back by the insurgent forces who wanted to use them as human shields. There have been convincing reports from Fallujah before the American attack that show the insurgents in that town were an extremely cruel and violent lot. And as I have stated before, the notion that all civilians could leave Fallujah and that those remaining behind must all have been sympathisers of the irsurgency is surreal, given the Iraqi culture and the total breakdown of public order in the country.

Wp is a chemical That combusts when it comes in to contact with oxyge,

Puting WP in a weapon, means its Now A weapon filled whith chemical(s)

When the weapon detonates The chemicals do the damage,
This in its most basic definition is a chemical weapon.

other weapons also have chemicals For instance a bullet has gunpowder,
(charcole, salt peter, and sulfur)
however its The Lead tip of the bullet that now is the projectile,
And not the chemical.

So it is not a chemical weapon.

Just becous you say its used for seting things on fire,or making smoke
Does not mean its not a chemical weapon.

its like saying Bleach isnt a chemical,
Its just used for cleaning stuff,

Or arsnic isnt a poison,
its just a mineral.

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

What sarcasm ???? Unusually for me there is no sarcasm in that sentance , it is a plain statement of fact with one unintentional pun at the start .

Notice your terms here Tribesman
Yes , your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .
my terms Red ? Don't you mean your militaries terms .

the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary
And a phosgene shell isn't a chemical weapon if it is called a smoke weapon , or a mortar isn't a mortar if it is called a smoke thrower , napalm isn't napalm if you replace the gel with sugar or the gasoline with kerosene .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

What sarcasm ???? Unusually for me there is no sarcasm in that sentance , it is a plain statement of fact with one unintentional pun at the start .

Notice your terms here Tribesman
Yes , your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .
my terms Red ? Don't you mean your militaries terms .

the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary
And a phosgene shell isn't a chemical weapon if it is called a smoke weapon , or a mortar isn't a mortar if it is called a smoke thrower , napalm isn't napalm if you replace the gel with sugar or the gasoline with kerosene .

---

Now, now my mick friend. You are feigning outrage at common "spin" used by all comers. Did the US label WP use as "chemical" in describing Saddam's use thereof? Yes. Did we rigorously label our own WP use -- not purposefully directed against a civilian population as was Saddam's (as you noted) -- "chemical?" No. This is common spin effort and regrettably typical of nearly all political communicators.

If you're not feigning outrage, then you are seriously trying to get someone in the American military to agree with a stance that says -- roughly -- that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals (or respect them as our equals and negotiate as equal partners with them). If you believe that, you have a distorted view of Americans -- but I suspect you're just feigning outrage for effect.

Did we rigorously label our own WP use -- not purposefully directed against a civilian population as was Saddam's (as you noted) -- "chemical?"
Saddam claims the civilians were collateral damage .
Or terrorist supporters due to their proximity to terrorists and foriegn fighters .
I mean they didn't have to live in the town did they , they had a choice to leave , they chose to live among terrorists .~;)

that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals
In regards to the real issue then yes , failure to ensure that the weapons did not hit civilians is not moral , no more moral than blowing up a pub because a few soldiers are drinking in it .
And if the allegations are proved that civilians were stopped from leaving and returned to the area to be attacked then yes it is criminal and criminal charges should follow.

Quote:

---

that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals
In regards to the real issue then yes , failure to ensure that the weapons did not hit civilians is not moral , no more moral than blowing up a pub because a few soldiers are drinking in it .
And if the allegations are proved that civilians were stopped from leaving and returned to the area to be attacked then yes it is criminal and criminal charges should follow.

---

I fail to see how can anything inside war be amoral. "Silen enim leges inter arma"? I mean there's no morality, the war itself is the very antagonic of all morality. From that point of view there's no soldiers and no terrorists, there's humans killing each others, and that's all, no one is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I fail to see how can anything inside war be amoral. "Silen enim leges inter arma"? I mean there's no morality, the war itself is the very antagonic of all morality. From that point of view there's no soldiers and no terrorists, there's humans killing each others, and that's all, no one is better.

---

Cool i think that stoped the arguing :)