US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Watchman]

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

[Proletariat]

By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.

Sajida al-Rishawi was more what I was thinking. I can't wait until she's hooked up to some fake electric chairs and has a lion roar at her while staying in a Romanian gulag.

[Watchman]

Do we really need to know your dubious tastes ?

[Redleg]

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

Not technicalities at all - but facts. Try it sometimes versus the hyperbole of calling soldiers mercs.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

and you would be correct

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.

[Watchman]

And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.

...
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.

And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...

[Redleg]

...
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.

And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...

All it requires one to do is read an older thread - do you need the link because of your own inablity to look for information?

You might want to look at calling soldiers mercs for a start. Typical crap of the far left to call soldiers mercs without knowing anything about them. Oh and don't attempt to mention conscripted service is different - all soldiers get paid - even conscripted ones.




Give you a hint though because I am feeling generous - now you will find it toward the end of the thread

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56758

[Watchman]

You could just have quoted the thing, you know.

...so what was your point anyway ?

[Slyspy]

Your also using the same type of arguement in calling White Phosphorous a chemical weapon. Again White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon it is an incedenary smoke round.

I don't believe in fighting next to a civilian population because it is messy and the risk is great to not only the civilians but to soldiers also - but war doesn't always give you that possiblity. Care must be exercised weighing the lose of civilian life against the necessary requirements of the military operation. Unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have, which give such statements as I have seen in this thread to come about.

So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.

Er, no because those targets were military the the potential for civilian casualties may have been low (I don't know the circumstances). Also, more importantly, the WP rounds were being used to their primary purpose of marking targets.

In the recent case the rounds were being used as offensive ordinance (sp?) due to their incendary nature. Any chemical effects associated with the rounds are seconadary (side-effects if you like) and enough to classify the ammo as conventional. Unfortunately the chemical effects do exist, contrary to various pendantic posts above, and are more likely to have an harmful effect in enclosed spaces eg burning buildings. If you use such weapons, and HE is not much better, in civilian areas, especially as a "liberating" force then you better be ready to face any political fall out. First on the list of things to do should not be "lie about it to your electorate". I repeat my previously stated belief that most people would not particularly care in this case so long as the authorities were honest. To the home audience, especially those already sceptical, the lies (or half-truths, the essence is the same) are worse than the facts. For example in WW2 we sank the French fleet and bombed French cities in the name of liberty, but these facts were not hidden and were regarded by government and the governed as necessary.

All those who declare that the civilians choose to live in the warzone show a severe lack of empathy and humanity, but I am not really surprised by it.

PS
To call all soldiers mercenaries a foolish thing to say. In a modern volunteer army the pay is not a big factor. How can it be, when the salaries are so low considering the privations and dangers involved? Why not train as a plumber instead?

[Tribesman]

You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.
That is a seperate issue isn't it Red , though it does make a nonsense out of all those saying "they could have left , they chose to live among terrorists so deserve to die" . Now the thing is this distasteful practice is ongoing and has occured in at least 3 towns in the past month .
But back to the WP , the Iraqi government is complaining and launching an investigation to get to the bottom of the issue .

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are. It's not my concern where they chose to live if they are going to harbor terrorists.

Well it appears that you may be blind then Harvest , but don't concern yourself about where people live in their own country eh .
Perhaps they should actually try the political process and try to find a way out, rather than resorting to terrorizing their neighbors and political opponents? I don't feel sorry for them, they are making their own path, and they will have to figure out how to live with it.
Now are you talking about the Shia terrorists , the Kurdish ones the Sunni Arab ones , the foriegn ones the American backed ones or what ?
Interesting torture facilities that turned up this week wasn't there , oh but they are run by the Iranian/American backed terrorists who were terrorizing their political opponents were they not . So those must be OK .


Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.
Quite peaceful Xiahou , compared to what ? But of course the terrorist attacks , murders and kidnapping in those peaceful portion wouldn't appear in the Liberal media would they , but luckily your government , the Iraqi government and various NGOs and political agencies do report on them . Oh that damn liberal media , why do they hide the stories eh ?

[Hurin_Rules]

So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.

Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.

Except of coursethe US never signed any treaty that would forbid us from using this. Its a war crime in your eyes. That doesnt make it so.

[Hurin_Rules]

Except of coursethe US never signed any treaty that would forbid us from using this. Its a war crime in your eyes. That doesnt make it so.

The use of indiscriminate weapons in urban environments is criminal regardless of what treaties the US has signed.

[Slyspy]

So if there were no law fobidding the mass murder of [insert name of target group here eg Welshmen] I could get away with it? Or if there was a law making the slaughter of [insert name of target group here] compulsory then that would make it right? Fantastic. *runs off to check statute books*

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So if there were no law fobidding the mass murder of [insert name of target group here eg Welshmen] I could get away with it? Or if there was a law making the slaughter of [insert name of target group here] compulsory then that would make it right? Fantastic. *runs off to check statute books*

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

[Watchman]

Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.

Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.

Yes it does. Of course I can see it now. Hey Lt lets toast some civilans with WP. Yes sure their only Iraqis anyway.Fire whan ready Gridley. The insurgents would never think of using civilans as cover. We all know at least they obey the rules of war unlike the US.

Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.

Your the one squirming here.

[Slyspy]

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that and I believe that you will fail. In fact until you stepped in with your nonsense reply to Hurin (my post which you quote was aimed at that) I was not even talking to you. My previous posts have been aimed at primarily at Redleg who believed (that others believed) that the mere use of WP would label him a war criminal, which was clearly wrong. I also called into question his argument that WP is not a chemical weapon. While WP is self evidently not designated a chemical weapon it is nevertheless a weapon with some harmful chemical properties, which may be highlighted by the use of the munition as an incendiary in a built up civilian area as opposed to its primary role of providing smoke for cover or targeting. In this case the use of such a muntion while tactically useful is politically damaging. Trying to hide the full story is, as I have said, more so. I just wish politicians had the balls to be honest.

The comments about lack of empathy were aimed that those immature enough to suggest that it was all somehow the fault of the civilians. My comments about mercs were addressed to a similar audience.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that

And I never said you did. I was replying to watchman.

[Slyspy]

Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.

[Kagemusha]

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.

Watchman Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.

Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.

This is a quote from you?

Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.

They did. This is news to me. Maybe you could provide some proof. Wow only women and children were allowed to leave huh?

[Redleg]

Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.

Of course I knew it was a strawman - just like I know calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon is a strawman arguement. Edit - therefor you now see how ridiculous I see the calling of White Phosphorous as a chemical weapon. Get off the Chemical aspect and concentrate on what the weapon is - smoke and an incedenary.

An incedenary being used in a city - I am not normally for that type of use of the munition - because you never know what fire is going to do. But as an allegation of chemical weapons use - the arguement falls flat on its face because its nothing but a strawman arguement.

Now there is valid tactical reasons for using WP in a city to mark targets for aircraft and even to mark and area for manuever - but when one focus on only calling it a chemical weapon - well you defeat your moral outrage of using a incedenary in a city - into the typical leftist ranting against the military. Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.

Care to guess why smoke munitions were added to the Chemical Weapons treaties and refused to be ratified by both the United States and the USSR when the treaties came out? Something I am afraid those who can't remember the cold war or have no knowledge of things military have fallen victim to forgeting to look into regarding the history of the treaties.

BTW - I will given you a hint the former USSR wanted to have all smoke munitions labeled as chemical weapons to prevent battlefield smoke - to include smoke generators, smoke pots, and the ability for combat vehicles to generate smoke.

[Slyspy]

Mi'lud Gawain I refer you to post #104 (by you) which quotes post #103 (by myself). #103 was originally posted in response to post #101 (by you).

Hope I got that right or this could get even more confusing. This thread hopping is not helping much either!

[Tribesman]

They did. This is news to me.
Perhaps you should pay more attention
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .
Hey I wonder who the Serbs let go in Srebrenica , but of course that was different wasn't it , as the men were all terrorists weren't they , they must have been because they lived there .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Mi'lud Gawain I refer you to post #104 (by you) which quotes post #103 (by myself). #103 was originally posted in response to post #101 (by you).

Hope I got that right or this could get even more confusing. This thread hopping is not helping much either!

If you go back and check the posts you will notice I asked if that was your position . I didnt say it was.

Perhaps you should pay more attention
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .

So the place was never evacuated then as everyman remained in the city. Can you provide a link?

[Kagemusha]

Here is the link Aurelian posted in the previous thread.http://http://www.underthesamesun.or...between_1.html
And peace of the article from that link, that pretty much clears it up:

November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town

All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:

As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"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 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Most of what you need to understand the nature of this war is right there when Army Col. Michael Formica advises Fallujans how to "live through Fallujah".

To this Army Col., Fallujah is not a place or a town but an operation to be lived through. It's a phase, a thing to be done and gotten over and through with. These people, on the other hand, live in Fallujah.

There's another thing about turning back men. It's a war crime.

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.

Note that these men tested negative for handling explosives. They weren't detained. They weren't charged. They were simply sent back into the war zone for the crime of being the rightful resident of a city that we are pounding into rubble.

A lot of people ask, well, why didn't they leave earlier? Forget the legality of everything we are doing and why people should have to leave their homes so we can flatten a city -- the effect of which will be to simply spread the "insurgents" around the country, as many experts have already pointed out. Forget the experts, that much is obvious if you think about it for more than ten seconds.

Remember this rule has been in effect since the cordon began. Men have been trapped in that city for sometime. Would you leave your 15 year old son, your husband, uncle, all your male relatives behind and go? Obviously, many people stayed with their families because, well, that's what families tend to do: they don't listen to your instructions to abandon their men. Of course, this "family values" administration neither understands or nor cares about such humanitarian concerns.

[Slyspy]

Gawain why ask me at all since that was not an issue which I had raised. Jeez even getting someone to admit to misreading who was saying what is impossible.....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town

All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:

As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

So then all males were not turned back. You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back. Also the casulaities everyone is complaining about seems to be women and children. Do you really think US soldiers intentionaly targeted women and children?

[Kagemusha]

If you read the whole article it was stated that many families simply turned around, because families tend to stick together. If US forces suspected those men as insurgents.Why didnt they just capture them?
About your question, artillery shell really doesnt ask you if you are an civilian or insurgent. If you look at the previous thread there is also an article from embedded journalist who was with an mortar section and described the mortar fire as random. Even the battalion Doctor came by and shot few grenades in the city. Im not starting to argue about some formalities with you on this subject. I cant prove that shelling a city full of civilians is intentionally killing civilians. Im sure that the intention was to kill insurgents. But its simple as it rejecting civilians a free passage out of an fighting zone is a war crime and thats it.

[Watchman]

Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.

This topic really seems to put your knickers in a twist, Redleg. Any particular reason ? Just curious.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate if you actually read the basis of my curious typologies that I helpfully explained. You'd notice that for one I don't consider all soldiers to be mercenaries, or there to be any emotional baggage attached to the term... I'll take my flak when need be, but only for things I actually did or said if you don't mind.