U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Adrian II]

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. Caution. Some of the footage is graphic. So are the loads of pictures in the Rainews24 website.

The BBC has an article 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]

I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.

Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.

[Adrian II]

I reckon those are allegations rather than facts.

Unless of course you witnessed it first hand.

Now where did I store that ostrich smiley?

[Aurelian]

I've been following this story today too.

Here's another source for the video, including the eyewitness reports by American soldiers. LINK 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

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]

Aurelian,

Big flaw in that. They are not illegal.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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]

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”.

Night night.

Don’t forget to brush.

[Sjakihata]

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?

[Soulforged]

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.

[Papewaio]

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]

Not nice, but apparently legal...

Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?

[Papewaio]

Is that a Saddam Hussein quote?

No, but I think there is a difference between incendiary weapons and chemical weapons...

[Divinus Arma]

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]

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 .

[Redleg]

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.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

where did I store the dictionary meaning of "fact" smiley?

[Red Harvest]

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]

We are? Good.

[BDC]

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...

[drone]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Xiahou]

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary.

Indeed. Sarin is a chemical weapon. VX and mustard gas are chemical weapons. This is not. Lets try and keep the spin in check.

[Adrian II]

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).

[Goofball]

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. Caution. Some of the footage is graphic. So are the loads of pictures in the Rainews24 website.

The BBC has an article 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.

[Redleg]

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.