Did the U.S. Military Attack Iraqi Civilians With.....
- Thread starter JoMoDo
- Start date
Oh yeah:
Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
The argument of doing something "against" the G.C. is void, as we aren't a party to this provision.
Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
The argument of doing something "against" the G.C. is void, as we aren't a party to this provision.
Oh yeah: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/radley_balko_ne.html#more
"Here are the five points he thinks seem to be clear:
1) White phosphorus (WP) isn't on any banned weapons list, nor is it widely considered to be a "chemical weapon".
Correct but incomplete, a better statement would end "nor is it considered a chemical weapon by any group not actively anti-war, it is properly classified as an incendiary or obscurant device"
2) But that's because it's largely used as a diversion, to light up battlefields, or for other purposes not directly related to killing people.
No, that is because it is an incendiary rather than a chemical weapon. Neither it's composition, employment or effects would qualify it as a chemical weapon. The statement is correct in characterizing it's use however.
3) If it is used for killing people, it's some pretty nasty stuff. It burns straight through anything it touches, and once lit, it's nearly immpossible to extinguish. In that sense, it's indiscriminate, making it more similar to a chemical weapon like Napalm than to conventional weapons.
Anything that kills people qualifies as pretty nasty stuff. Traumatic amputation of a limb, or disembowelment by a high explosive (HE) or chunk of shrapnel would make it quite nasty in my mind and certainly indiscriminate as I am aware of no guided shrapnel. Since our WP rounds are not designed or useful as chemical weapons, the burst and initial explosion rapidly vaporizes into a cloud of irritating, but non-fatal smoke. Someone within a few yards of impact might be killed but the deadly blast radius is minimal compared to an HE round. The particles that didn't immediately vaporize can land on bystanders and cause burns, but once again much less lethal than the rain of shrapnel in a large area around an HE impact. As I mentioned the smoke produced is an irritant, but so is all smoke and it could only kill if a round impacted an enclosed space which contained the smoke causing suffocation, not chemical death.
4) Given number three, raining white phosphorus down over a city may not violate the letter of chemical weapons treaties, but it certainly appears to be morally questionable, particularly if used by a country that cited the immoral, indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq as one reason for going to war in the first place.
No again, since we have determined that it doesn't rain down and kill as a poison gas or bathe anyone not very near in flesh sizzling chunks, your entire grandiose moral equivalence is pointless. We did not and don't use it indiscriminately. We use it in situations where the Rules of Engagement allow the use of far more deadly munitions to accomplish the objective. We do so to minimize casualties, not fry civilians. This constitutes a miniscule percentage of the times the munition is employed, as the vast majority are illumination missions where the round explodes high in the sky and floats peacefully to the ground under a parachute, extinguished or barely burning when it reaches the ground.
When we did use it to flush bad guys out of trenches or other hiding spots, the smoke disoriented and confused them, it did not kill them via chemical means. We could have simply destroyed their hideouts and greatly increased the possibility of civilian casualties, instead we throttled back and now we are catching truly undeserved crap about it.
5) The U.S. military is using white phosphorus as a weapon. Whether we've careful to use it only against clusters of enemy solidiers (as I believe we've generally been careful to do throughout the war with other weapons, despite my objections to it) or more broadly against targets like Fallujah, where insurgents are more interspersed with civilians, seems to be the source of contention.
No for the last time. The source of contention begins with whether we should even have had to listen to this flagrantly false defamation repeated by any credible source. It is so easily debunked and yet, news outlets have mouthed the anti-war propaganda and once again created damage to our reputation out of whole cloth. Maybe we even strapped Korans to these rounds so the poison gas would be sacrilegious too.
Where is any credible evidence we even used it more broadly in Fallujah than anywhere else? We acted under more stringent rules than any Army in history and now we face unfounded accusations that actions taken to safeguard civilians constitute chemical warfare.
I expect this kind of dung to be flung by the usual suspects, but Radley you have shown too much gumption in everything else I have seen you tackle to put you stamp of clarity on something you were certainly obscured from seeing clearly. If for some reason you have questions regarding these issues I will certainly help satisfy them as there is just no there, there in this sordid calumny. We have done damage to our reputation without doubt, but allowing false defamation to stand and even vouchsafing parts of it is wrong. You are a more informed writer than this, so do the right thing and fix it. If you would like I can verify my bona fides and point you to a number of other professionals able to speak decisively regarding this."
This coming from a Weapons Expert who has used and taught the use of Military weapons, including WP rounds. He is not just some Jackass Leftard with a Computer that became an expert in White Phosphorus and its effects by looking at a few JPEG's. (and no, friend Jo, i am not talking about you. I am speaking of the idiot that started this whole mess.)
"Here are the five points he thinks seem to be clear:
1) White phosphorus (WP) isn't on any banned weapons list, nor is it widely considered to be a "chemical weapon".
Correct but incomplete, a better statement would end "nor is it considered a chemical weapon by any group not actively anti-war, it is properly classified as an incendiary or obscurant device"
2) But that's because it's largely used as a diversion, to light up battlefields, or for other purposes not directly related to killing people.
No, that is because it is an incendiary rather than a chemical weapon. Neither it's composition, employment or effects would qualify it as a chemical weapon. The statement is correct in characterizing it's use however.
3) If it is used for killing people, it's some pretty nasty stuff. It burns straight through anything it touches, and once lit, it's nearly immpossible to extinguish. In that sense, it's indiscriminate, making it more similar to a chemical weapon like Napalm than to conventional weapons.
Anything that kills people qualifies as pretty nasty stuff. Traumatic amputation of a limb, or disembowelment by a high explosive (HE) or chunk of shrapnel would make it quite nasty in my mind and certainly indiscriminate as I am aware of no guided shrapnel. Since our WP rounds are not designed or useful as chemical weapons, the burst and initial explosion rapidly vaporizes into a cloud of irritating, but non-fatal smoke. Someone within a few yards of impact might be killed but the deadly blast radius is minimal compared to an HE round. The particles that didn't immediately vaporize can land on bystanders and cause burns, but once again much less lethal than the rain of shrapnel in a large area around an HE impact. As I mentioned the smoke produced is an irritant, but so is all smoke and it could only kill if a round impacted an enclosed space which contained the smoke causing suffocation, not chemical death.
4) Given number three, raining white phosphorus down over a city may not violate the letter of chemical weapons treaties, but it certainly appears to be morally questionable, particularly if used by a country that cited the immoral, indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq as one reason for going to war in the first place.
No again, since we have determined that it doesn't rain down and kill as a poison gas or bathe anyone not very near in flesh sizzling chunks, your entire grandiose moral equivalence is pointless. We did not and don't use it indiscriminately. We use it in situations where the Rules of Engagement allow the use of far more deadly munitions to accomplish the objective. We do so to minimize casualties, not fry civilians. This constitutes a miniscule percentage of the times the munition is employed, as the vast majority are illumination missions where the round explodes high in the sky and floats peacefully to the ground under a parachute, extinguished or barely burning when it reaches the ground.
When we did use it to flush bad guys out of trenches or other hiding spots, the smoke disoriented and confused them, it did not kill them via chemical means. We could have simply destroyed their hideouts and greatly increased the possibility of civilian casualties, instead we throttled back and now we are catching truly undeserved crap about it.
5) The U.S. military is using white phosphorus as a weapon. Whether we've careful to use it only against clusters of enemy solidiers (as I believe we've generally been careful to do throughout the war with other weapons, despite my objections to it) or more broadly against targets like Fallujah, where insurgents are more interspersed with civilians, seems to be the source of contention.
No for the last time. The source of contention begins with whether we should even have had to listen to this flagrantly false defamation repeated by any credible source. It is so easily debunked and yet, news outlets have mouthed the anti-war propaganda and once again created damage to our reputation out of whole cloth. Maybe we even strapped Korans to these rounds so the poison gas would be sacrilegious too.
Where is any credible evidence we even used it more broadly in Fallujah than anywhere else? We acted under more stringent rules than any Army in history and now we face unfounded accusations that actions taken to safeguard civilians constitute chemical warfare.
I expect this kind of dung to be flung by the usual suspects, but Radley you have shown too much gumption in everything else I have seen you tackle to put you stamp of clarity on something you were certainly obscured from seeing clearly. If for some reason you have questions regarding these issues I will certainly help satisfy them as there is just no there, there in this sordid calumny. We have done damage to our reputation without doubt, but allowing false defamation to stand and even vouchsafing parts of it is wrong. You are a more informed writer than this, so do the right thing and fix it. If you would like I can verify my bona fides and point you to a number of other professionals able to speak decisively regarding this."
This coming from a Weapons Expert who has used and taught the use of Military weapons, including WP rounds. He is not just some Jackass Leftard with a Computer that became an expert in White Phosphorus and its effects by looking at a few JPEG's. (and no, friend Jo, i am not talking about you. I am speaking of the idiot that started this whole mess.)
Yes, and I am sure that he is unbiased, and without an agenda. I am equally as sure that the US would never catagorize a chemical weapon as an incendiary, so that it could use it on targets, and have a convenient alliby...ie. WP was being used as a "diversion or to light up a battlefield," and not to inflict damage. The US would never do that. :dead: Napalm, 2005 version.
^^ If you would read what I posted, you would know that your video is meaningless. Your video preys on human emotion and works backwards instead of forwards. -- "Look at these photos; and once you do, you will know that even if WP isn't classified as a Chemical weapon, it should be."
I repeat.
This man is a Weapons Expert, and not some sensationalist Internet Pundit. Bias is inconsequential.
I repeat.
This man is a Weapons Expert, and not some sensationalist Internet Pundit. Bias is inconsequential.
I can tell everyone on here that the US uses White Phospherus on a regular basis because i'm Field Artillery in the Army and we keep that shit stocked on the gunline at all times.
The Army's excuse for using it is to use it as a smoke round, we've used alot of WP during smoke missions, but what always has made me wonder, in my 2 years in Field Artillery is why in the fuck they would use WP as a smoke round when we have plenty of HC Smoke on hand. I personally know the whole smoke excuse is bullshit and the smoke missions we do with WP is just a cover for the fact that they always want WP on the gunline to be used as a weapon.
We've actually trained using WP as a weapon in a firemission that is nicknamed "Shake and Bake".
Basically we "shake" em with WP then "bake" em with a HE(high explosive) round.
The Army's excuse for using it is to use it as a smoke round, we've used alot of WP during smoke missions, but what always has made me wonder, in my 2 years in Field Artillery is why in the fuck they would use WP as a smoke round when we have plenty of HC Smoke on hand. I personally know the whole smoke excuse is bullshit and the smoke missions we do with WP is just a cover for the fact that they always want WP on the gunline to be used as a weapon.
We've actually trained using WP as a weapon in a firemission that is nicknamed "Shake and Bake".
Basically we "shake" em with WP then "bake" em with a HE(high explosive) round.
Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
(11-15) 16:43 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.
Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorus is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.
"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.
The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorus and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorus.
"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.
"We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."
The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.
Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorus. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorus shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.
The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorus against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
The department later said its statement had been incorrect.
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."
Venable said white phosphorus shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.
White phosphorus is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
(11-15) 16:43 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.
Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorus is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.
"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.
The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorus and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorus.
"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.
"We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."
The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.
Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorus. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorus shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.
The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorus against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
The department later said its statement had been incorrect.
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."
Venable said white phosphorus shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.
White phosphorus is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
I don't think the argument is about banning the use of WP. The argument is about using it knowingly on civilians. Besides, you're not going to get yourself anywhere with that argument because most of the folks causing an outcry over this situation are against the war in the first place. They'd be happy to ban everything that has to do with an American offensive in Iraq. Anyway, the disturbing thing is not that WP was used per se, but that it was knowingly used on civilians.
Tadou why you ignore this?
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt
April 10, 2004
By: DARRIN MORTENSON - Staff Writer
NC Times
Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.
"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."
Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.
"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.
They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.
Say 'cheese'
Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.
Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.
Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.
Some have started to think of what happens after all the guns go silent.
"I just don't want to come home and have someone calling me a baby killer," Alexander said after firing dozens of high explosive mortar rounds into the city. "That would piss me off."
Alexander said no one has told him what the charges have hit.
for full article read here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt
April 10, 2004
By: DARRIN MORTENSON - Staff Writer
NC Times
Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.
"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."
Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.
"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.
They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.
Say 'cheese'
Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.
Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.
Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.
Some have started to think of what happens after all the guns go silent.
"I just don't want to come home and have someone calling me a baby killer," Alexander said after firing dozens of high explosive mortar rounds into the city. "That would piss me off."
Alexander said no one has told him what the charges have hit.
for full article read here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt