U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Soulforged]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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.

[Aurelian]

"Raw Story" 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]

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 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, 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]

This is exactly what i feared.

[Watchman]

"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...?

[Redleg]

The complete article from the Field Artillery Magazine for anyone that is interested.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/

[Redleg]

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/Archiv..._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]

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.

[Fragony]

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?

[Adrian II]

Wow AdrianII, who stepped on the estrogen button?

Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock?

[Fragony]

Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock?

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

[Soulforged]

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.

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 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?