US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon
by Steven D
Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

(From the diaries. Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos)

That's right. Not from Al Jazheera, or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. 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."


In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions."

However, as Mark Kraft, an emailer to Eric Alter's blog, Altercation, points out today, the Field Artillery Magazine article fails to inform its audience that

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

Enough said.

If you watched Oliver Stones' Platoon they used it several times. They even used the term "shake and bake" a couple of times.

it all afternoon!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5313063&mesg_id=5313063

i remember first reading about this in regards to Fallujah. There were news reports from the BBC and others concerning their use. Strange days at DU.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php

use. See the my other post!

that is enough.

If it's banned, there's a reason.

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm

Who banned it?

By what authority?

What is the mechanism for enforcing the "ban"?

If it is "banned", then why does every army on earth (except for the Salvation Army and the Tartan Army) use it?


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

MK77 = Naplam. It is just marketed undeer a new name.

The Mk77 fuel-air bomb is not a WP delivery system.

Again, define "banned" with regard to White Phosphorus.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

or not as you seem to want to disregard US atrocities...

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/briefings/232

<snip>

Use of incendiary weapons is restricted under the 1980 UN Convention on Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Protocol III of this Convention makes it "prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons" (article II.2). The UK ratified both the Convention and Protocol III on 13 February 1995, and remains fully bound to them. More than 80 other countries around the world have ratified the treaty, and almost none retain incendiary weapons in their arsenals. However, although the United States has ratified the convention, it has not signed up to the protocol on incendiary weapons. It continues to stockpile and use napalm-type weapons.

“Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon,” said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. “It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds.” <2>

MK77 = Napalm = White Phosphorous = Incendiary weapon.

Protocol III: Incendiary Weapons

Protocol III regulates the use of weapons designed to set fire to or burn their target. The protocol proscribes targeting civilians with incendiary weapons and restricts the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in close proximity to concentrations of noncombatants. It also prohibits parties from targeting forests or other plant cover unless the vegetation is being used to conceal military forces. The protocol only covers weapons created intentionally to set fire or burn, such as flamethrowers. Weapons that ignite fires or burn as a side effect are not subject to the protocol.

THAT is why napalm does not equal WP, leftchick.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/CCW.asp

Used as "weapons created intentionally to set fire or burn".

The incindiary effect is NOT a "side effect",
it is the primary purpose of the weapons use.

Cutting and pasting are NOT substitutes for reading and understanding.

or jelly, it's a powder. I don't know why this is so fucking hard to understand.

I am not sure of the ban they are speaking of. Though I do believe it is not supposed to be used as an AP munition. If they did in fact use it as such it further damages our already damaged standing in the world.

Any argument the Military makes for the use of it as such will be no more easily swallowed than Mk77 not really being napalm because its a little bit better on the environment and has only a slightly different make up.

What I am wondering and confused about is if WP clouds can so effectively "burn" people down to their bones and whilst doing minimal damage to clothing. Once WP is burning it doesn't really go out. So all those hundreds of corpses burnt to the bone with clothes intact would have had to have been in contact with some gaseous cloud that reacted to skin, and most likely moisture.

It has to make one wonder.

and we have to be VERY careful, and start thinking like laweyers, like the DA presenting the case

It is up to us to prove it... and the burden of proof is very high.

Now MK-47, that is actually forbidden by the conventions... so that is actualy our wiggle room

WP will ignite if smeared on stainless steel. It doesn't primarily set something else on fire, it oxidizes and spontaneously starts to smoulder and then bursts into flame. Anything in contact with it, however, catches fire.

And to keep it from combusting, just keep it from air. Water's a poor choice--elemental WP doesn't react with water, but it floats. We used some sort of oil in high school.

(And, yes, the chem teacher allowed me to play with white phosphorus. Also played with thermite }(

that is enough.

And anyone who argues it is not is in denial or a proponent of the use of WMD on innocent civilians...

<snip>

A fire bomb is a thin-skinned container of fuel gel designed for use against dug-in troops, supply installations, wooden structures, and land convoys. Fire bombs rupture upon impact and spread burning fuel gel on surrounding objects. One or more igniters and fuzes are used to ignite the fuel gel mixture upon impact. Fire bombs are used primarily for low level attacks.

The Mk 77 Mod 4 fire bomb holds approximately 75 gallons of fuel gel mixture and weighs approximately 500 pounds when filled.

The container is cigar-shaped, non-stabilized (will tumble end over end when released from the aircraft), lightweight, and is made of aluminum. It has a 14-inch suspension between the lugs and provides two filler holes, which are 31 degrees down from the top of the container. The filler holes are covered by filler caps, which are secured by retainer rings. The filler caps prevent foreign objects from getting inside the container during shipping and storage, and provides a sealed closure after the container is filled with fuel gel before fuzing. The filler holes also provide for the installation of the primary fuses. During fuzing procedures, the filler caps are removed and replaced by igniters, which seals the closure.

The primary fuzing system consists of the igniter Mk 273 Mod 0 with the M918 fuze or the initiator Mk 13 (igniter Mk 273 Mod 1 with the Mk 343 fuze). The Mk 77 Mod 4 also has provisions in the nose and tail for an alternate fuzing system using the AN-M173A1 fuze and AN-M23A1 igniter.

Functional Description
When the fire bomb is released from the aircraft, the arming wires are pulled from the fuzes, allowing the fuzes to become armed. When the bomb impacts the target or the ground, the container will rupture, disbursing the fuel gel mixture over the area. The fuzes detonate, rupturing the igniters, which , in turn, ignites the gel mixture.

Fuel Gel Mixture
Fire bomb fuel gel mixture, formerly called napalm, is a mixture of fuel and gelling solution that produces a thickened mixture. The gel should be stringy and sticky and readily adhere to most surfaces. The fuel gelling system consists of a fuel gelling unit, drums of gelling solution, aviation gas, mogas, JP-4, or JP-5 fuels.

http://www.ordnance.org/firebomb.htm

as somebody who actually had to know this shit inside out... WP is NOT banned aginst valid military targets and... it is not conssidered a WMD...

My credentials, Red Cross Worker, I had to ahem, monitor this crap... and in case of war I had to know this crap inside out.

Is it pleaseant no...

Is war pleasant? NO

IIRC during teh days of fallujah the point was made that the US was using NAPALM or its close decendant, which stradles the line between incendiary and WMD....

But WP is NOT a WMD... and people need to be technically correct about it

Can you use it against civiies? NOPE.

That is the issue and indiscrimate use of WP on civvies is a warcrime.

One or two overly-hysterical people ranting and raving about WMD are all it takes for someone to cherry-pick and claim that DU thinks the U.S. is using WMD. I wish these people would just knock it the fuck off.

WHITE PHOSPHOROUS IS NOT NAPALM, OR ANY FORM OF NAPALM

One is a powder, one is a jelly. There's simply no debate on the matter.

the ones arguing obviously have some sort of agenda.

WP is absolutely a chemical weapon the way our troops
have been using it, and against the geneva convention,
and against any semblence of humanity.

Well to those that were giving it.

GFYSYMPOS! AND THATS WITH FEELING MF'S

"'using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

"he" ? :wtf:

Highpower explosives

allowed out. If a family didn't want to leave the husband to die alone, the woman and children were killed.

Occupying armies employ this tactic when they are otherwise unable to control a guerrilla war. It works for a short time, only to have the guerrilla war resurface with even greater ferocity. And after the tactic is employed, all hope of a peaceful occupation is gone.

The beginning of the end.

in this case time needed for more looting.

I asked my Vet father about WP and he was not surprised. Said WP was used in Vietnam all the time. Vietnam/Iraq Guerilla/insurgents Jesus..Kennedy may have been correct about Bush's Vietnam.

It was commonly used as a spotter round when calling in an arty barrage or an air strike. If we were engaged with the enemy we did not want the arty to land on our position and we did want it to be on target and so the first round out was normally WP. Seeing the location of the WP we could adjust the arty accordingly. Spotter planes sometimes dropped WP to mark targets for air strikes which were also coordinated through troops on the ground.

Sometimes the targets were in unpopulated areas and other times in villages or hamlets. All of the villages in our area had family bunkers but I'm not sure how much of an arty strike they could take. Civilians often tried to flee but they risked being shot when they did.

Sad situation but that's often how it was.

certainly deserved everything they got I guess? :eyes: They must have been a few victims of the "shake and bake" missions. :mad:
This shit is just plain wrong. Imagine the hue and cry if "insurgents" used weapons like this?
Our government has become exactly what they said they were fighting against, a brutal dictator that "gassed his own people". Melting them with WP is much better, correct? :grr:
We have to get the hell out of Iraq, NOW!

has been vilified wrongly for months.

Why should the Pentagon deny they use White Phosphorus? That would be like denying they use gasoline.

WP is commonly used in military munitions, and has been for almost 100 years. The Brits manufactured the first WP hand grenades in 1916. WP bombs were dropped with incredible effect on Dresden and Tokyo in 1945.

Today, it may be found in:
*hand grenades
*smoke grenades
*cannon ammunition
*tank gun rounds
*rockets (used by observation craft to mark targets)
*mortar rounds
*artillery shells
*coatings on tracer ammunition
*illumination ("parachute") flares

The only place you won't find WP is in the soldiers' morning eggs, Burt.

Here is some information on WP from e-medicine:
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

we refused to sign.

We lead by example.

Out of 192 independent countries on Earth, only 51 signed the CCW, and the US was one of those.

Countries who signed the treaty can choose which protocol (subsection) they will be bound to. Not every country signed up to be bound by every rule.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

What they've been denying is that it's used as chemical weaponry. But as your link points out, it certainly can be used to create more heat than light, so to speak:



Most injuries associated with white phosphorus are the result of accidents due to either human or mechanical error.


Pathophysiology: White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.

Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.

Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST segment depression, T wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").


Mortality/Morbidity: Morbidity and mortality are related directly to trauma and burns sustained from exposure.

Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
Trauma usually is a combination of blunt and penetrating. Blunt trauma results from the percussion and force of the blast, and penetrating trauma results from projectiles produced from the explosion.

WP is a highly effective incendiary, and has horrible effects on ground targets. It starts incredibly hot fires that can't be extinguished with water (The firebombing of Dresden is an excellent example of the effects of ground detonation of WP munitions).

People exposed to burning WP have extensive, deep 3rd degree burns, that tunnel into the body and feed on the natural moisture of human flesh.

However, it is a poor choice as a chemical weapon. WP is much more expensive than real chemical agents (comparing lethal doses), and it burns up everything it touches. Chemical weapons are employed to kill or incapacitate people, but leave their buildings, bridges, or vehicles intact, so using an incendiary would be counterproductive.

Here is a video of WP flares in use:
http://www.idleriot.com/content/clips/1201/C130_Angel.html


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

was one of the single worst criminal acts ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. Calling it "effective" is similar to calling the Nazi deathcamps "efficient". Technically true, but appalling in it's verbalization.

And before you start I am well aware of the hypocracy inherent in suggesting that in war there are proper ways to win a fight while other methods are deemed beyond the pale. Such an idea is somewhat ludicrous when after all, dead is dead regardless of whether it came via napalm or a bullet.

I would like to suggest however that, rather than accept that war itself is inhumane in the extreme and thus such weapons as napalm and WP (when used as an incendiary) should be acceptable, that rather it may be high time that we, as a species, realize just how horrifying the entire concept of war actually is. To me, any people that engage in war for any reason other than immediate self defence should immediately be declared to be at war with humanity itself, and opposed by civilized nations everywhere.

In the case of Fallujah the use of such weapons is particularly heinous since in no sense can we be imagined to be fighting a war per se any longer. War is made between nations, not upon certain segments of a population of civilians. The US military leadership is engaged in a police action, but utilizing tactics better suited for a battlefield than for a large civilian city. The weapons and tactics employed kill indiscriminately, without any regard to the age, sex, or intentions of the victims (much like in Dresden. How many civilians died there?).

I personally find the term "war crime" to be almost an oxymoron, however if ever there is a place for such a term to apply it is in situations like this one. There is no excuse for the widespread murder of civilian populations, no matter whether you call it a war or an occupation. The notion that the United States wears a white hat is dead for decades, and may never exist again.

but I got more pissed off. Our country is turning into all the things I was taught were bad about the USSR and Germany while growing up. People who can't see this are either stupid, criminally ignorant, or have joined the shit side. Any one, two or all three.

I betcha a buck!

Jesus Christ, it's Dresden all over again. I think we are de-evolving as a culture.

I suspect that the Military has been ordered to do whatever they can to keep their casualty numbers down. That is why they use whatever means at their disposal to kill Insurgents that keeps US troops out of harm's way.

It's on the Democracy Now website.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516227

Good discussion between the producer of the Italian documentary, "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre", a soldier interviewed in the documentary, and a PR guy from the army. Basically, the PR guy said that it was nothing but propaganda, that white phosphorous is legal in that it is only used to illuminate and that it was not used against people. The video, of course, proves otherwise with shots of white phosphorous raining down and extremely graphic footage of horribly burned bodies. NOTE: If graphic scenes bother you, think twice about watching. The scenes are not easily forgotten, and with respect to those who died, they should not be.

I have translated the PDF docs (THE PROOF) to HTML here:


I changed the PDF into HTML structure for easier perusal...



There's some other video links and writing by Chris Floyd here too...

http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah

but this is war. It maybe an imperialistic, wrongheaded, evil war, but its still war.

To deny our troops a potent weapon in conducting a war seems to be silly, and smacks of the political involvement we had re/Vietnam that was so disastrous.

The purpose of war is to kill people and break things -- and the job of our army is to do it as efficiently and with as little death on our side as possible.

What's the problem?

It was children and other noncombatants, as well. Isn't that a problem?

minimizing collateral damage is a reasonable goal.

I see a lot of people complaining about the method of death, as if this is any better (or worse) than being shot or having a mine blow up in front of you.

it is human lives-civilians-my daughter is in the military and she believes she's there to defend the constitution and protect her country not killing other civilians and imperialistically steal other people's resources--it's bullshit!!!! You talk about Dresden, but Hitler betrayed the German people and the only way he did it was with the help from greedy industrialists from the US and Europe. Yes, we are all collateral damage to those who profit from the deaths of our families!!!

I thought Saddam was in custody. How can we be fighting a war if the entire government and military complex surrendered and was disbanded?

We're involved in a conquest in Iraq. We are trying to FORCE the people of that country into a system of government that they are not ready for. So we are spreading freedom in the form of dead bodies and, AND vile weapons that are so awful that the military is DENYING that they used them. WHY are they denying this IF they are so proud of their effort and the effectiveness of this weapon?

you know that Poland had a despotic leader and Hitler was only trying to "free" the Polish people. I'm sure Hitler told every good German that they were there to deliver freedom to the Polish people.:sarcasm:

Or level the country with daisy cutter bombs. Level the country, kill them all and let god sort them out? What's the problem? Why "deny our troops a potent weapon in conducting a war"? :eyes:
We're a nation of laws, we're supposedly the guiding light of freedom and justice. What we do sets the standard for the rest of the world. So now all of this shit can be thrown right back at us and OUR troops because WE'VE set the rules of engagement, including the use of our torture camps.
NOW do you see? :shrug:

Or did you just want to start with Fallujah?

Have you even heard of the Geneva Conventions? I know the admin pretends they don't exist, but frankly, I expect better from everyone here.

Is there no limit to what sort of warfare should be waged, provided a war is actually happening? Cause I have to tell you, it sounds like you're saying that war is bad and undesirable, but so long as we're fighting in it, we should use anything and everything to kill any living creature in our way.

I'm an actual progressive, which means I don't celebrate and cheerlead for the war atrocities we commit.

You asked what the problem is. The problem is, among other problems, that you condone butchery. What in the hell are you thinking?

First off, war is a means to a political end. Unless we are sadistic murderers, the purpose of war is not to just "kill people and break things".

Secondly, the main problem here is that innocent people are asphyxiated and melted to death. This is a definite war crime if there ever was one.

Third, the problem with Vietnam wasn't that we "fought with one hand tied behind our back". The problem with Vietnam was that the political ends were essentially unachievable. Ergo, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Fourth, the job of our military is to defend us, the people, and the constitution. It isn't to kill innocent people in a foreign land. Perhaps the military is doing as it is asked but it's not really "doing it's job".

Fifth, I watched the Italian documentary vis a vis the atrocity in question. People literally are "melted away" beneath their clothes. That seems like a problem to me.

You know what, why don't you let someone come into your country and gas/melt your family to the bone.... perhaps then you may see the problem.

There are some people who don't have the foggiest idea of what being a liberal is--hint: it requires at least some shred of humanity in one's soul. I have no use for butcherers or the subhuman filth that enable them with their sterile talk of collateral damage to incidental biologicals.

We're in deep trouble when members of our own party don't have any concept of the sanctity of human life, when they don't understand that we don't have a right to just start killing people when it suits us. And of course, they don't understand what a terrible price this nation will pay for our crimes.

the clothes" line.

WP ignites anything that has a combustion point at or lower than it's own, just like any other incendiary. If WP lands on clothing, it'll ignite. And it's plenty hot enough to set those on fire. It'll catch fire if placed on steel. It requires a source of free oxygen, such as air, and ignites spontaneously. As a particulate, it would ignite quickly. It doesn't react with water or flesh or much else naturally occurring.

Of course, I'm just talking about elemental white phosphorus, but that does seem to be what's under discussion. Fortunately, when experimenting with it many years ago, I never got any on my skin. But I did get a few little burns in my shirt that my mother was upset about.

went down in Fallujah.... perhaps if it happened here... your neighbors and their children were burned by wp it would be different.

of mentioning the suffering that this war has brought and a woman beside me shrugged her shoulders and said "well, that's what happens with war." I wanted her to know the true horrors of war, the ugliness and suffering of war." She acted so unemotional. Did she have no family? Did she not wonder what would happen to them? Walk a mile in my shoes. Where is empathy in this country?

but it seems that my words have been misinterpreted.

I hate war, I hate GWB, and I hate violence. But who decided to initiate it? Who is leading it? Who is directing it? GWB. He's the one that deserves our anger and scorn. Some 22 y.o. kid on the ground is doing all he can to stay alive and whole.

And yes its selfish, but war is hell. Those are my kids, my brothers, and my sisters out there -- vs. people who I don't know and who wish them harm. Would I give up my brother and sister to save someone elses? That's the question -- at least someone is going to die. Its not a nice question, its not a fair one -- but its one that has to be answered in war every day.

Would I give up my family to save 2, 3, 4, 50, 5000 of someone elses? At some point yes -- or I'd give up myself. So the use of horrid weapons ensues, since the General's and Colnel's believe we can save our own by using them.

Put the blame where it is deserved. Let every shriek of this dishonest war fill GWB's and Cheney's days. Put a headphone and videocamera on both of them and let them think of nothing but the pain and death they have caused. Force them to stand trial in Iraq alongside Saddam, but when it comes to protecting my own -- sibling, children, or countryman, I will not abandon them. If that means killing some people who are harboring the opposing side, I recommend they don't do it.

Just because we allowed Bush to become president doesn't mean my brother should face a firing squad.

My fellow human being is my brother and friend, so to hell with war entirely and to hell with those who think that war is bad only when the other guys do it.

Have I said how much I hate the leaders of this country today?

Who Would Jesus Burn Alive ?

:shrug:

Its like the Army claiming to use bullets as a weapon.

WP is nothing new.

thinks using wp in a city is a noble thing.

If it is just like using bullets, I wonder why they don't deny using bullets?

fine and dandy if you use it to illuminate and attack equipment, even enemy personnel (Willy Pete hand grenades)... if we are to be critical we need to be technically correct on the issue

If we prove that the use of WP was done against Civilians with the foreknowledge of troops and commanders, and it was not collateral damage, then you are talking of a war crime

We need to be very careful and correct when we do this... extremely careful and technically correct

First thing, WP is NOT a WMD... it is an incendiary

Second, it cannot be used against civilians

Third it is allowed to be used against valid military targets... including enemy personnel

Fourth, it is not a nice weapon, but all we use in warfare is not a nice weapon and this is not a game, people die and they die in excruciating pain as well

For the record I have not seen the italian piece, but the fact we tried to kill sebrena speaks volumes

Now if we used WP indiscriminately against civilians... you just crossed that magical line into a warcrime... and like all crimes the burden is on the accuser... why people need to be very careful and technically correct.

I can't believe these vile bits of human filth have taken over our country. Somebody give John Hinkley a weekend pass, please.

that Jon Corzine now has the power to appoint an anti-war Democrat to the Senate, versus a party insider we're not so sure about. We need all we can get.

Robert Menendez wouldn't be bad either.
Welcome to DU! :toast:

the problem is this - there is nothing left to look at in the case of white phosphorus use and thus no bodies to count either?

How fucking convenient.

:kick:

1. WP and other incendiaries are not 'chemical weapons.' That is why they are regulated under Protocol III of the "Convention On Prohibitions Or Restrictions On The Use of Certain CONVENTIONAL Weapons Which May Be Excessively Injurious Or To Have Indiscriminate Effects."
* Let's pretend it was an honest mistake by the objective producers of the documentary.

2. WP and other incendiaries are not prohibited for use against military targets. WP et al are not restricted at all when used as illumination or for screening purposes. As a weapon, they are not supposed to be deliberately used against civilians (a la Dresden).
* So the only thing at issue is whether or not the US deployed WP as a weapon against civilians deliberately, or whether the US took ..."all feasible precautions ... 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."

As far as I recall, Fallujah had weeks of warning about the impending attack. Civilians were given the opportunity to evacuate. Bases were established to shelter and feed them. All the reports I heard about the battle was that the city was mostly deserted. I'm sure there were still some civilians who did not evacuate, and that some of them did die. But I don't think the US used the weapons indoscriminately on civilians as the primary target.

3. WP is not some earth shattering new space age weapon. IT has been in active use by militaries all overthe world for nearly a century.

4. The gruesome pics of corpses do not show evidence of WP. Black bloated bodies are exactly what you get if a corpse lies around for days/weeks. Also, many of the corpses showed massive trauma wounds, and not burns. The mystery about burned bodies with intact clothing is no mystery. Heck, WP wouldn't be a very effective incendiary if it couldn't burn through Egyptian cotton. Right?

5. Just about everything else in the documentary is sophomoric propaganda directed at ignorant, ideologically motivated dopes.

6. Other than that I think the documentary was excellent. It does show quite graphically what can happen to you if you jihad yourself onto the angry side of US Marines.

onto the "angry" side of U.S. Marines? The Iraq War has something to do with Jihad? Or is it defense against an invader/occupier or political motivation?

While there certainly are elements of the insurgency that have been radicalized over loss of loved one, etc., the real forces driving the violence (by that I mean without which the insurgency could not sustain itself) are the baathist/tikritis, the foreign jihadis, and other religious ideologues.

The vast majority of the people in Fallujah during the fighting were insurgents. Civilians had plenty of opportunity to get out.

In any case that documentary just plays to the ignorance of people without the wit to investigate the claims even superficially.

I'm not saying you have to like Bush, or like war, or think dead bodies are pleasant. But headlines about US using chemical weapons, gassing people, deliberately murdering civilians, etc., are just not borne out by the evidence - or lack thereof. It seems that not even a modicum of objectivity was attempted during the production of the documentary. Regarding the WMD claims, they could have invited even one objective weapons specialist to assess their evidence and present an opinion.

These people just don't like Bush or the US so they don't feel obliged to even feign objectivity. There is no possible way that they are ignorant of the absurdity oftheir claims. This means they are deliberately lying to manipulate anyone dumb enough not to google their claims.

Bush has been called a liar and worse because he said the same things that the previous administration said about Saddam. He has been called a liar because he believed the intelligence reports given to him by the IC. No one bothers to read these documents, or the bipartisan assessments ofthose documents, because its easier to demonize the President.

Every time the democrats rely upon the ignorance of the American people to push their otherwise worthy platforms, it will come back to bite them in the ass.

less than 10% of the insurgents are foreigners, the rest of it... far more complex about it.. hells bells even the Christian Science Monitor ran this story fairly recently... the foreigners are driving this is propaganda... it needs to be this way, for the other story line will make many Ameircans uncomfortable... maybe.

Do some readying on Iraqi history... what you are seeing is very similar to what hapened after 1920 when the UK came around the first time... and sorry to say this time is on their side, not ours.

As to who remained in Fallujah before the line of departure was crossed, it is a fact that the Red Crescent was not allowed in. It is a fact the ICRC launched an inquiry and it is a fact that if we misused Willy Petes, we broke the law of ground combat... there are limits on how you use this.

Now it is also a fact that people have to be careful with terms, but given that we have found ZERO WMSs and that is the casus belli for this war... waging agressive war and Nuremberg come to mind.

"less than 10% of the insurgents are foreigners,"

I didn't say were the largest. If 10% of the insurgents are represented by fanatical and suicidal murderers who relish in blowing up civilians, I would say they represent a very formidable element. Not to mention the foreign armchair jihadis who funnel money, weapons, and other support to the insurgency as a whole. This latter group can't really be quantified and its therefore impossible to estimate their influence. We can conservatively say it is significant.

The vast majority (correct me if I am wrong) of suicide bombers who have been captured have been foreigners. Their impact on the overall situation is not directly proportional to their numbers.

"for the other story line will make many Ameircans uncomfortable... maybe."

I do not deny for one moment that Iraqi nationals are the principle fodder for this insurgency that is fighting against the establishment of a tolerant, pluralistic society. Heck, I would think that just about every Iraqi and every coalition soldier wants the latter out of Iraq.

"Do some readying on Iraqi history..."

I've done a bit. There are no guarantees in conflicts. There are always mistakes on all sides. The ME in general has always been fragmented and 'local.' Notwithstanding 19th and 20th century western imperialism, the political groupings seem increase/decrease in size depending upon the ruthlessness of particular historical characters. Its a tough nut to crack to be sure.

"As to who remained in Fallujah before the line of departure was crossed, it is a fact that the Red Crescent was not allowed in."

Embedded reporters were quite successful in reporting scandals from fallujah, but they did not report excessive civilian casualties. The milbloggers did not mention significant civilians (alive or dead). They wrote a lot about insurgents.

"if we misused Willy Petes, we broke the law of ground combat... there are limits on how you use this."

I agree. But I don't think people here understand what misuse would be in this case. As far as I understand from protocol III, it can not be deliberately used against civilians, and it should not be used in civilian areas unless 'feasible' precautions are taken to protect the innocent. Military targets are fair game. An insurgent occupying a deserted house in an almost deserted fallujah seems a legitimate target.

I don't deny they probably used WP. But I wonder to what extent. Considering the type of buildings in Fallujah, it seems that WP would be highly ineffective as a weapon. It cannot penetrate concrete. One milblogger - a tanker - did mention on one occasion when it was fired from the tanks as a smoke screen. They were heading into a kill zone and needed cover for infantry. He was worried that the launchers wouldn't work because they had never been used. The smoke grenade launches were successful and he was glad. That's the only anecdotal evidence I have re WP.

"given that we have found ZERO WMSs and that is the casus belli for this war... waging agressive war and Nuremberg come to mind."

The cause of the war was Saddam and his failure to comply with ceasefire/disarmament terms for over a decade. Compliance was therefore enforced and a forfeit leader was removed from power. Your invocation of Nuremburg is just as hyperbolic as the folks who claim that the US used WMD in Fallujah.

But a US Colonel told us this stories, and I trust him. I have heard some others from retired enlisted and officers who have since left the field of combat... and have a good nose for stories... did this for many years.

Now lets take the case for the war. The casus belli is the WMDs, that was the casus belli presented to the UN Security Council... that was the casus belli presented to the American people. That WAS the casus presented to the US House and the US Senate... that was the casus belli. ZThere were many other reasons presented AFTER the fact... but what we presened to the US was they have WMDs and they have to be disarmed NOW! Funny that the documents presented by the Iraqis to the UN were first redacted by us... care to tell me why?

And my invocation of Nuremberg IS NOT hyperbolic... no WMDs has made this war ilegal under international law and the leaders who took the US to war belong at the Hague, or the USSC, your choice, for these are also crimes under the US Code... oh that includes senior leadership in the US Military, (UCMJ). They have only added to this by the commision of other war crimes, such as torture, which right now the VP of the United States is still advocating for

If you are a service member, I pray to god you are low ranking... and have no decision power.

as to the establishment of a tolerant society... do me a favor, check the colonialist white man's burden at the door. You have a lot of learning and readying to do. The list is long... very long... and you might as well start your studies with what Lawrence of Arabia wrote about the British occupation of Iraq... and go from there. By the way, I am not going to defend Hussein's actions, but we sold him much of his chemical arsenal in the 1980s, you may remember a Mr Rumsfeld involved in this act... so we are not fully innocent in this... and yes I got to be part of that dance (peripherically) in the 1980s

Oh and for the record before you say this... I was a Red Cross Worker and will demand we treat POWs well and humanely, and that we follow the rules of land warfare... why? I am a selfish SOB, if we don't our troops will pay in the future, and even our civilian populations, as we are no longer a super power.


And I can see how you were confused, sorry... bad wording... was referring to a colonel who told us about the 10% number or lower

:rofl:

He got tombstoned - oh, well :D

but never US Army...

Captain Brzezinski, Ma'am...

so did you have fun raedying that exchange?

the hunt for the actual perpetrators of 9/11 was essentially abandoned (except insofar as it could be manipulated) in order to prosecute an entirely manufaftured war for the apparent sole purpose of GWB proving to GHWB that he has a bigger tockley and more pendulous cojones.

For the sake of all that anyone holds precious, all those "extraterritotial freedom fighters" were invited to the party.

The civilian's oportunity to get out was, to take their live, and only their lives with them, in to a world where they are entirely bereft of support.


Tell me which is worse. The deliberate murder of civilians, or the entirely uncaring slaughter, because they "for whatever reasons" just happened to be in the way? There is no worse. My brother failing to move his foot out of the way after I told him to, did not in any way make him culbable, when I subsequently brought the axe down on his toes.

Telling people who have no place to go, to get out of the way, does not give a person (or group) carte blanche, and an "easy out" when those folk end up crushed beneath their treads.


Bush is not called a liar because he believed certain "intelligence reports". He is being called a liar, because he is either entirely complicit in the manufacture of those reports, or such a braindead putz that any claim to rationality is a lie by default.

"This means they are deliberately lying to manipulate anyone dumb enough not to google their claims."

And yet every descision and public utterance of the Bush Administration has been 100% factual and entirely rational. Yes one party has indeed been taking oscene and unfair advantave of the gullibility of a misinformed populace. I can tell you here and now it has not been the "Democrats". They may well be guilty of far too many sins of omission and entirly far to blind to the happenings around them, but the ones who have lied, time and time again to the American Populace, and always to advance their own ends, have all resided in the camp that you have declared yourself to occupy.

"Every time the democrats rely upon the ignorance of the American people to push their otherwise worthy platforms, it will come back to bite them in the ass."

Funny. I would have called it the other way. Short of direct Divine intervention, I would have to say that your "hero" is odds on favourite to become the first US President in history to move directly from the Whitehouse to the Big House, entirely due to policies that are already making mincmeat of his stringy glutes.

"Bush is not called a liar because he believed certain "intelligence reports"."

OK.

"He is being called a liar, because he is either entirely complicit in the manufacture of those reports, or such a braindead putz that any claim to rationality is a lie by default."

The latter characterization would not make him a liar. Since everyone else beleived the same thing (including the entire Clinton administration AND almost all of the current democrats in office), they must be braindead putzes as well?!?

Regarding the former, if you had bothered to read the primary docs including the 2002 NIE, and then all of the bipartisan analysis that came after, you would know that not only Bush, but the entire administration was cleared of any attempts to influence the development of the IC conclusions.

In any case it is silly to think that Bush created the claims he made about Saddam, when they are the same claims made by the Clinton administration.

and Desert fox destroyed the last remnants,

Now since you know this much have you read the Project for a New American Century Rebuilding America's Defense's? And did you know that the whose who of the current administration wanted to go to war with Iraq as early as 1995? Did you know that preemption was hatched as early as 1992 by then under secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and encouraged by Sec Def Cheney?

Do your homework son. Do your homework...

YEARS earlier before the second round of inspections. Before Bush pushed the inspectors out because they were threatening his pretext for war. CONTEXT.

It is not "silly" to think that Bush created the claims he made about Saddam. I watched it happen before my eyes.

The "bipartisan" analysis was a political whitewash.

You say that the archfiend Clinton had the same intel that bush 43 had. So -- are you saying that the bushies added NOTHING to the intel from the Clinton years prior to launching george's war? Seems to me that saying that they had the SAME information is almost as egregious as saying that they had BAD information. If there was no new intel what sparked the sudden need for a war? Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm not used to finding bush apologists at DU

Especially for your comments on the insurgency. I seem to recall a number of foreign agitators who assisted with our insurgency against the British. LaFayette, vonSteuben, Louis XVI. (apologies to the spirits of those whose names I misspelled) But I suppose some might say this is different. Because us is us and them is them.

Just like it was the colored folks' fault for not getting out of New Orleans. So, because the illegal occupiers gave fair warning the onus is therefore on the civilians to get out. I value your restatement of the fact that WP is neither new nor uncommon but I think that the larger point that folks are making (one of them at least) is that the bushies have sunk to yet an even lower low.

And it doesn't matter because you're a trolling freeper and will be banned soon enough. Look guys, whether or not an actual war crime was committed (and I submit that's it's almost impossible to know at this point anyway. Hopefully an investigation will be done with a War Crimes trial to follow) a documentary like this can, and does, infuriate and energize the people of America. Of course there are some heartless assholes who don't care that we're burning children alive, but I think a lot of Americans wouldn't be too keen on this aspect of Bush's war. Which is why we need to show this video to as many people as possible. If it's no big deal, why is Bush and the MSM hiding this?? IT IS A BIG DEAL.

As long as the Democrats rely on the essential humanity of the American people to push their platforms, we will succeed.

It's just WRONG, that's all. Who gives a shit about the technicalities? Call it whatever you want, it's just WRONG!

it is not about feelings, but a court of law.. put yourself in the shoes of the prosecutor in front of a jury... this basic mistake of calling it what it is not, will give the defense lawyers an easy one.

This is why it matters... and when it comes to this we have to be extremely exact in our use of language, we don't have a photo of a five year old running away in pain... and you can bet TIME would not run it today...

1. If as a part of it's use, the direct chemical effects upon unprotected tissue, is a decisive factor (as is evidenced in the OP) then it is being used as a chemical weapon, no matter what it's official designation.

2. Strange definition of feasible. Like Saddam before them, and like the former Soviets in Chechnya, the US military excluded all able bodied males from those permitted to "vacate the premesise". Whilst I may not agree with the "man is head of woman" bullshit, I do understand how it works. Such a policy effectively condemns entire families to essentially irreversible poverty. They must abandon all assets they can't carry on their own backs. They must abandon all income. Many, knowing their husbands/fathers were in fact innocent would have chosen to hunker down and rely on the "All American" sense of decency to protect them.

No mate. A thousand examples from the Berring straight to the "Pillars of Heracles"; From the Barrent's Sea to the Cape of Good Hope; demonstrate that a policy of "decapitation" in any intensly patriachial society will result in women, childrem and other innocents remaining in the line of fire, because the future is even more uncertain if they attemt to remove themselves.

The powers that be knew that these WP rounds would be falling amongst women and children, and with that knowledge, chose to deploy them anyway.

3. So? So has sticking arrows in the mud and filth of the battlefield to promote septic wounds. Sticking one's dick in any still living (or at least warm) female was once standard miltary practice too. Certain practices (most often with deplorable laggardness) are deemed to be practices that go beyond the pale in any sane and rational person's world.

Deploying "living" fire against children is one of those practices.

4. Did you actually read anything writen about the manner in which white phosphorus burns. It will leave a cigarette burn charhole in "good Egyptian cotton" and once it reaches the flesh underneath, it will tunnel inside the body and burn it from the inside out.

Nor does it matter eactly what turned those living people into blackened, bloated corpses. What matters is that many of those blackened, bloated corpses, were women and childrem who pathetically clung to the one small shred of stability in their lives and paid for it with those lives.

I repeat, the US miltary and their superiors, deliberately utilised weapons of indiscriminate slaughter in a theatre where they knew full well that there were a significant number of women and children. And further, if they were any students of military history at all, would have known entirely in advance that their chosen strategy was abhsolutely certain to result in those women and children being between them and their objective.

5. Indeed. How then would you characterise the entire Bush Administration with it's, red, green, blue, orange, plaid, and paisly alerts? From 9/11 onwards, it has been hysterical (and manufactured) propoganda, which for some strange reason or another has resulted in ever larger amounts of money, that the US does not have to spend, disappearing into a small handful of pockets. And instead of the safety being trumpeted publically, there is in fact an ever increasing and tightening cycle of violence, which futher "justifies" even more obscene transfers of funds from the public purse, to the pockets of a handful of mates.

Tell me. Are you one of thoes with his hand in his neighbour's pocket up to the armpit?

6. Or the natural consequences, if one lives by a policy of: "My mighty Yankee dick can ream any raghead arsehole that gets in my way." (Appologies to the true Septic Tank who only pisses us off with loud shirts and a failure to recognise that volume will never transcend language barriers.)

The USMC may have a lot to be proud of. Faluja is most certainly not one of them.

"1. ...no matter what it's official designation."

OK - you go run and tell the UN! I'll wait here. Mate.

WP is not a WMD. It is an incendiary. Its use is restricted to targets of military value and it should never be used against civilians deliberately.

2. ... the US military excluded all able bodied males from those permitted to "vacate the premesise".

They could vacate, but they would be detained until the cessation of hostilities and until they had been vetted. The insurgents and civilians knew full well what was coming their way.

"The powers that be knew that these WP rounds would be falling amongst women and children, and with that knowledge, chose to deploy them anyway."

Announcing your assault weeks in advance, letting civilians out, etc., is pretty gracious in the middle of a war. The insurgents deliberately hide amongst civilians which is one major reason they are excluded deliberately from Geneva. I suppose we could use your argument and proposethat the liberation of France in 1944 was illegal, or loathsome, or criminal, because the allies were forced to bomb populated towns/villages.

"3. Certain practices (most often with deplorable laggardness) are deemed to be practices that go beyond the pale in any sane and rational person's world. Deploying "living" fire against children is one of those practices."

See above. And you don't really believe that US soldiers deliberately targeted children - do you? Why would a loving father freedom fighter put his children in such circumstances?

"4. Did you actually read anything writen about the manner in which white phosphorus burns."

Believe me, if you had a piece of WP burning through your skin, you would not sleep through it. You would not by lying all snug in your blanket and pj's. You would be frantically trying to pry the burning shards from your burning flesh and tear off your burning clothes. Those people were not killed by WP.

"Nor does it matter eactly what turned those living people into blackened, bloated corpses."

OK - Why don't you take that up in a different thread. I thought we were discussing the allegations of US use of WMD on civilians as presented in the Italian documentary.

I don't think it's a matter of policy, and I don't think -- if it's happened at all -- that it's happened a lot. But I don't doubt that it might have happened. Fahrenheit 911 introduced us to several proud american soldiers who got a major kick out of killing Iraqis and who thought that dead Iraqis were a hoot. It's no great stretch of the imagination to think that these fellows might shoot at a kid if they "knew" he was an enemy. War is grotesquely dehumanizing. Always is. And add to that the once-common notion that if you're working for bush you're working for Jesus, so everything's gotta be OK. This has been a vile, vile enterprise. There's not much I'll put past anybody.

(Apologies. I got ahead of myself and neglected to post this screed, which may have rendered some of my other replies cryptic at best.)

That at every turn the words you are parroting have been demonstrated (with ample evidence no less) to be the self-serving propoganda of the Bush Administration, and yet, even when the evidence is all in the other direction, you attribute the propogandising to those who can produce (unmanufactured) evidence to back their claims?

1. It was used deliberatly against civilians, or with every expectation that civilians would be in the firing line.

It was used specifically for it's effect on unprotected flesh and it's indiscriminate incendiary qualities. I do not give a flying fuck for legal squrirming, it was used as a "chemical" weapon, by any other definition of the term.

2. Define The cesation of hostilities? A family is just as much without support if the breadwinners are dead or in "limited indefinite custody."

What where their real options. Get bombed in situ, or get the fuck out with nothing, and somehow survive, with absolutely no means of support until such a time as that "limited indefinate custody" came to an end.

No. It is propoganda pure and simple. If there is essentially no place for the "evacueees" to go and be safe for the duration, then there has been no real or effective effort to minimise "collateral damage" in real terms.

3. So? Children were not deliberately targeted. That nobody gave a flying fuck that children would be caught in the firing line does not make it any better. And in some ways makes it worse, since it places those children entirely beneath consideration.

No loving father would deliberately place his children in harms way, but when his only alternate choice is to knowingly send them into (almost guaranteed) "harms way" or to do what he can to protect them by his side.

It's folks like you, decrying "their deplorable treatment of their women" etc. who somehow manage to overlook, that in the eyes of their culture they (the men) are entirely obligated to ensure the safety of those who are under their protection. Your so called generosity, demands that that everyone on the "wrong" side, abandon every single thing that is meaningful to them, both the non-combattants and the combattants, and trust entirely to an American "charity" which has to date been entirely unforthcoming.

4. There are no burning clothes to tear from your body. Good Egyptian cotton has a (in normal circumstances) pleasant habbit of self-extinquising. Now whilst I do not know the exact physiological effect of WP, I do know that intense pain can induce unconsciousness. Whether they slept through their deaths or fainted through them. The results are the same. They're dead.

WMD's or weapons of indiscriminate destruction. The corpses of innumerable women and children testify, that the campaign in Iraq is being prosecuted in a fashion that, pays only lip service at best, to the concept of minimising harm to the innocent.

If the administration was even remotely serious about the "reasons" (that they finally fixed upon) for the US presence in Iraq, then they would be spending a lot more lives of American "boys" (and would be doing so with some reasonable claim to good reason) on the firefront towards the specific ends of minimising harm to the innocent.

Twenty thousand casualties keeping a million Iraqi women and children alive would (or should) make an American proud. Two thousand, in the process of adding our own contribution to the indicriminate slaughter just makes people feel sick to the stomach.

I tried yesterday to post the same info and logic, but people would not listen. Some saw the words "chemical weapons" and would not let that go. I even saw posts from people who actually believe WP does not ignite, but form a huge cloud of white dust that reacts to the moisture in skin, eating down to the bone but leaving clothing fully intact!!!!! What nonsense.
At any rate, thanks for putting the truth out there. Let the masses make up their own mind.

If you post something incendiary (lol) like that, it really pays to follow up and clarify your position. Since you had 16 posts yesterday and 17 today, I'm assuming you never went back to defend what you had said. You never did address whether it was proper to use it as an offensive weapon against civilians vs. as illumination to ferret out the enemy at night. Big difference and yet you will not respond to repeated requests to defend your position. Don't complain if you aren't willing to fight bud. I still don't know why the military is so hesitant to discuss the use of this incendiary if they never used it against innocent civilians, deliberately or not... what are they afraid of?

before you attack me.
I attempted MANY times to defend my position, but one has to admit defeat when the effort is futile. I included a few links to support my position with facts, but apparently, they went unused, since anyone who replied to me went off-topic (as YOU do in YOUR post) on what the original argument was about in the first place: That WP IS NOT A CHEMICAL WEAPON!!

it IS an incendiary, the issue is how it was used...

I never said it was a chemical weapon - who cares. It is clearly a chemical and if it was used on civilians to scare them and it ended up burning them severely or to death, then how is it different than a chemical weapon? I could give a flying fuck what the technical deifinition is - why are you so caught up in this? Sounds like you fired the weapons yourself and are feeling bad about it. Relax and argue your points if you want. When someone asks you to defend a post you consider that an attack? Maybe you should post somewhere where you know everyone will agree with you...

if it was used as prescribed, illumination, tracers, the usual... it is awful, it is ugly, but ... it is legal

If they used it against civilian concentrations (from the evidence it seems they did) that is a war atrocity, if not outright crime... if this is the case... (there is a reason why I keep using if), then somebody has to face the music. Wanna bet that use was not authorized by a Private, hell not even an LT... but at least a LtCol...

Funny how that happens...

originate with the troops in the field . . . approval for said use had to have come from someone high up in the chain of command . . . someone as high as Rumsfeld . . . or Cheney . . .

and tracers have it, and tracers are a common load... now Napalm, at the very least the theater commander, remind me, that was LGen Sanches, and his boss is General Abizaid... now the artillery rounds, are usually authorized at senior combat zone commanders, regimental... or at the lowest batalion...

As to language it is not technically Napalm, MK 47 is not though it acts in similar ways, which makes it very much ilegal...

Yes careful to cross my T and dot my Is...

I mean, we are occupying the country, after all.

of the Falluja-White Phosphorous issue (and not excluding media such as the BBC) see:

EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!!

+

AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES

+ comments...

Here: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/69499

DUers may already be aware of the following description of the use over several days of White Phosphorous mortrs to pound civilian areas from afar (ref. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt) article publshed in the North County Times, serving San Diego and Riverside Counties (California), last modified Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:52 PM PDT, DU thread "Story of Marines using "Shake 'n' bake" (White phosphorus)" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5315872

I'm a former FA officer, and an Iraq Vet. I did not participate in Falluja.

White Phosphorous is NOT Naplam. They are entirely different munitions. US Army Field Artillery units always carry and fire WP rounds. Currently, there are no artillery munitions in the Army that deliver Napalm. I have no idea what the Air Force might have.

WP is not a banned substance, and has been used in the Army for decades as an incendiary munition. My units fired it for training... It's very common. Firing it in time of war is certainly not a war crime, nor is its use banned by Geneva Conventions.

WP can be used for illumination, but is not the best munition for that purpose. The Army has "Illum" rounds that are basically a really bright light that gets dropped out of an artillery round on a parachute. These rounds are benign, and usually burn out before hitting the ground. They are much more effective for illumination, and most Army units wouldn't use WP to illuminate unless that was the last option.

"Shake and Bake" is the slang term for a High Explosive / White Phosphorous mission. Let's say a battery of six guns was firing "shake and bake." 3 would fire HE, and 3 would fire WP, with different timings. Shake and Bake is typically used against a target that is receptive to both an incendiary round and an HE round. It can also be used to flush ground troops out of hiding positions with WP, and then to kill them with the HE.

To summarize, WP munitions are nothing new, and their use is nothing new. It is not a war crime to use WP against enemy combatants. If WP was knowingly used against civilians, then that would obviously be a crime, just as if any type of weapon was used against civilians.

I'm a little confused at the outrage of using WP against Iraqi insurgents. Blowing people up with HE isn't really any prettier, nor is shooting someone with a rifle...

I guess my outrage is that the war was waged in the first place...

and I wisb people were aware... it is very lega, as you point out...

What is at issue is the use against a concentrated civilian population.. that is the issue... against insurgents, not a nice way to go... but when you choos to take arms in any war... well you know how that goes.

The issue is not if they were used, but upon whom... just like any other weapon.

error

As far as I can tell, the army was pretty set on killing all people who refused to leave Fallujah within a given time period. That to me smacks of indiscriminate killing, and I don't see how anyone can justify it, regardless as to what type of ammunition or weapons were used.

as we did in Nam... at the end of that party, five year olds were known to carry hand grenades to the troops...

As to the rest... we need to start thinking of this as if we were both prosecutors (language matters) and defense lawyers... at the very least we might be able to prove an atrocity... yes not as bad as a war crime,

Like I said, I was not in Falluja. I don't know what happened there, but if US servicemembers knowingly killed civilians, then that is a war crime. The use of WP, in itself, is not a crime if it is used against enemy combatants.

Defining "enemy combatant" is another thing entirely...

The problem is having US servicmembers knowingly killing civilians and yet some tactics, like the one you described, seems to make killing civilians routine. They could shell buildings with impunity, apparently, as long as they say they thought there were enemy insurgents in the buildings in question, they are in the clear. I really don't see a distinction between that and a suicide bomber doing the same to its percieved "enemies" in a similar building.

telling friend from foe and distinguising who is the enemy

by the way, suicide bombers consider all Israelis enemy combatants, since they are soldiers in uniform at one point or another... and AQ considers you an active combatant too.

This is what is so FU'ced about this war

Now if troops went after civilians knowlingly then an atrocity was commited... but the nature of total war means you are going to go after civilians... sooner or later, (WW II)

This is why this is so hard...

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/body.asp
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

This is an account of an American serviceman that was there:

"It just comes across the radio... In 5 mics we're going to drop some Whiskey Pete... Whiskey Pete thats the military slang for White Phosphorous... There is no question that White Phosphorous is a chemical weapon... This video proves that a chemical weapon was used in a massive and indiscriminate way on the population of Fallujah... In the days that followed US satellite shows Fallujah burnt out and destroyed to the ground... The gasses from the warhead, the white phosphorous disperses in a white cloud and when it makes contact with skin then its absolutely irreversible damage, burning uh, flesh to the bone. Um, it doesnt necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes and this is why protective masks to not help it will burn through the rubber of the mask, it will manage to get inside your face. If you breath it it will blister your throat and your lungs till you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxegen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud but, at that point its just impossible to stop... (have you seen the effects of these weapons?) yes, burned bodies, burned women and burned children, white phosphorous kills indiscriminately. Its a cloud that in most cases, to within 150 meters of impact, will disperse and will burn every, every human being or animal..."

I'd strongly prefer a bullet to the head.

How incredibly S I C K! :grr: :grr: :argh:

chemical weapon, this specialist should be careful in the language he uses... as language matters

It is WRONG to use WP as a weapon, whether it is technically WMD or WHATEVER.

period... especially on the wings of a lie

But language matters... and callign something what it is not takes credibity away from you.

Counselor, think of yourself as a lawyer presenting a case before a jury... you are not careful, the defense will tear you to shreds.

On and by the way, here are some clues about war

It is not night,

It is actually hell

And young people die...

Oh and in war, if you have a weapon you are a target, even when you are not a combatant you may be a target...