U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[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.

[Watchman]

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]

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]

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).

[Redleg]

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]

Ok.Thanks for your reply Redleg.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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...

[Tribesman]

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]

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?

[Watchman]

*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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Adrian II]

Interesting Red, ever head of a strange thing called gravity?

You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on.

[Redleg]

LOL

We must have our banter.

[Watchman]

Touché.

[Aurelian]

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

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

[Watchman]

Ah, so it actually got that pretty down there...

[Papewaio]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[drone]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Redleg]

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.