U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Kralizec]

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.

[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.

[solypsist]

US denies using white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians

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.

[Slyspy]

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.

[Xiahou]

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]

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 ""....

[Strike For The South]

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]

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).

[Xiahou]

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? (that's if its true to begin with- which is less than clear.)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer.

[Red Harvest]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer.

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]

Wikipedia 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

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:

"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

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]

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]

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]

Lead bullets can poison you too... but they are defined as weapons that kill via hydrostatic shock not chemical

[m52nickerson]

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]

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).

[Fragony]

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

[Adrian II]

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
• Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war!
• What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself...

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

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Redleg]

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
• Newsflash, people die in terrorist att.. in chemical warf... I mean in war!
• What if they died from, say, the impact of the phosphorus, not you know, the phosphorus itself...

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

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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/milita...nitions/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]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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, (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.