America can use them, but Sadaam can't!

[Stonkwell Bogtrotter]

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

....clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Source: Independant Online

[~WinGz~]

well another show of ourselves being contradictory. With the stuff we have hidden its insane.

[mikebiacsi]

Meh, the US army always operate above the rules of the UN. In theory the whole war on iraq is illegal. I mean, wasn't there a vote on wether or not to go to war with iraq? im pretty sure there was and im also pretty sure america ignored the outcome. Weapons of mass destruction? What weapons of mass destruction?

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

OK, lets cut through the BS here, is it really important what we used on a civilian target? Is it worse to drop a napalm like bomb than say a ton of freaking artillery?

The main argument the US will have is that they "evacuated" the city before the assualt and that everyone who stayed was either with the insurgents or stayed at thier own risk, so in essence at that point militarilly they'll assume that they're all military targets, and personally I'm in agreement. That's why they asked everyone to leave so they could **** up the insurgents, if you're going to stay that's you own accord. I actually think that the Fallujah scenario was even more humane and diplomatically sound than say the bombing of Berlin during WW 2.

As for this silly difference we have concerning WoMD, NBC, and napalm, I really don't see what this supposed "humane" use of weapons is since the intent of all weapons are to kill. What is the difference with gassing 1,000's of people or killing them from the air with an AC-130? There's really none. What's the difference between using your standard battle rifle to kill someone and using a mounted .50 cal to kill someone? Nothing really but according to international law there is. it's all BS and window dressing to try and add some civility to an otherwise uncivil action.

[Pencilmonkey]

Well, after checking the various websites. I really can't find any of the 'new information' they are talking about.

Now, anybody that knows me in these forums knows that I am an extremely outspoken opponent of the Iraqui war, and the tactics used therein.

That said, I can't find any documentation of these attacks, or photo evidence. Odd that, in one of the most publicized wars to date, that only one reporter globally would have this...and I can't find it on his website.

Also the way they describe that the bodies were found with 'clothes intact but with faces caramelized or turned to leather by the white phosphorus attacks.' Phosphorus does not do that....it will burn anything and everything. Having been in service in a combat zone myself, I have personally used phosphorous in starlight shells...they detonate high in the air and illuminate the terrain.

My call on this is to remain dubious until more persuasive evidence comes to light. Until then we are truly operating in the dark, relying only on rumour and hearsay.

[Vykranth]

Technically, the mark 77 mentionned would be incendiary weapons which, according to wikipedia, are not banned like chemical weapons: sarin, VX, mustard gas White phosphorus incendiary

That's something the coldest part of me would be saying.

The more humane part of me would say that using incendiary bombs on towns with civilians or even insurgents will not help the US army turn the tide of war.

To answer mAcOdIn's remarks about the supposedly "humane" use of weapons,

it's something that happen after World War I and II when the general conscience found out that the two World War produced weapons so horrible that casualities could reach hundreds of thousands of victims or the consequences could last decades.

So, as war could not prevented, international laws were made so that terrible events like the battle of Verdun, le Chemin des Dames, Ypres, Stanligrad, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not happen again.

These international laws can be seen as an illusion: I agree with you that the intent of weapons is to kill and war is a violent, inhumane opposition between two countries and for the casualities, being killed by a bomb or by a bullet, do not make any difference at all. Yet, at this point, these are limits that have prevented several conflicts to turn much more deadlier.

[Beastage]

The only evidence that white phosphorus was used is on bodies on the ground, how can someone tell those bombs weren't not used by the insurgents?

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

But more people were killed in Iwo Jima than Hiroshima, the idea that banned weapons somehow create more casualties than conventional ones is absurd, excluding nukes. The idea that this 500 bomb would be marketdly different than a conventional 500 pound bomb is equally rediculous. So in the end my question is what if we did use this? Is it wrong to use this on a city block yet pound the very same city block into rubble with an AC-130 which seems to be ok?

Truth is, is that the same deaths will happen with conventional legal weapons just the same, so outside of biological weapons like plagues, just what does it really matter?

And the US never signed the treaty anyways so does that still make it illegal if we never signed in the first place?

[Scudworth]

I actually think that the Fallujah scenario was even more humane and diplomatically sound than say the bombing of Berlin during WW 2.

pfff, how about Dresden, or even-better, Tokyo. Carpet-bombing a city made out of wood, with incendiary bombs.

As for this silly difference we have concerning WoMD, NBC, and napalm, I really don't see what this supposed "humane" use of weapons is since the intent of all weapons are to kill.  What is the difference with gassing 1,000's of people or killing them from the air with an AC-130?  There's really none.  What's the difference between using your standard battle rifle to kill someone and using a mounted .50 cal to kill someone?  Nothing really but according to international law there is.  it's all BS and window dressing to try and add some civility to an otherwise uncivil action.

586782814[/snapback]

What Vykranth said, It's a 'numbers' game. You cant polish-off a few thousand people in one shot with an AC-130, nor with a battle-rifle or a .50 cal.

I never really knew WP was 'news' to anyone. A new variation of Napalm? big whoop. Fuel-air bombs yippee....

As usual, the one who is winning is the one who 'makes the rules'. When American troops are getting socked with this stuff, everyone jumps on the band-wagon and starts talking trash about whoever is using it against them. But when it is the Americans who are using it, its a more efficient, troop-saving tool.

asmuch as there certainly are weapons that make dying way more miserable; to paraphrase my history teacher in grade 9: "there is no-such thing as a humane weapon."

p.s. that doesnt mean I am on the 'boo war, melt all the guns, utopia!!!" bandwagon.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

You also can't polish off a few thousand people with one 500 pound mk-77. Considering the relative kill zones of one mk 77 bomb and how long a single AC-130 could pound a target I'd actualy wager the conventional AC-130 could kill way more people.

It's legal for any nation to use on a military target even those that signed the agreement so it's not banned, and the city was evacuated and the targets were military targets so even had we signed it it could be argued that we were within the limits.

The bombing of Tokyo wasn't as humane as this, if it's true, but that's a different comparison, however we didn't evacuate Dresden or Tokyo before hand like we did here. We specifically targetted civilian populations in those actions, not one of our finer moments you'll get no argument here.

[Dave Veteran]

Looks like the Italian press (quoted as the source) is only saying that it alleged by insurgents (also fighting for the hearts and minds of Iraq). The Italian source is only confirming that the Starlight rounds were being used.

Italian Source Translated

I have to be honest it is hard to be sure with a Google translation, but that's what I got out of it

[Dashel]

Until this documentary is released its a bit too soon to say if there is any factual merit to these claims.

[El Bourricot]

You also can't polish off a few thousand people with one 500 pound mk-77.  Considering the relative kill zones of one mk 77 bomb and how long a single AC-130 could pound a target I'd actualy wager the conventional AC-130 could kill way more people.

It's legal for any nation to use on a military target even those that signed the agreement so it's not banned, and the city was evacuated and the targets were military targets so even had we signed it it could be argued that we were within the limits.

The bombing of Tokyo wasn't as humane as this, if it's true, but that's a different comparison, however we didn't evacuate Dresden or Tokyo before hand like we did here.  We specifically targetted civilian populations in those actions, not one of our finer moments you'll get no argument here.

586783188[/snapback]

[to answer your previous points about banning chemical and biological weapons] I think the difference lies not in the number of people dead or on how they die, but on the non-dead casualties made by the weapons. A bomb will blow up, kill people, rip off some arms and legs, possibly shatter your back with shards of metal, but once that's done you can then proceed to heal the wounds and get on with what's left of your life.

However take for example sarin: a drop is enough to kill you, however the symptoms don't appear straight away, and the gas has a cumulative effect over the years - you'll get worse and worse (if you didn't die straight away), whilst your nervous system takes more and more damage, until your body finally caves in and you die years after the exposure. Doctors can't do much...

I read somewhere that only 4% of people exposed to mustard gas during wars actually died from it. The rest had their lungs/skin/stomach/face/eyes/etc burnt out and various other disgusting effects.

Similarly, nuclear weapons leave behind them a trail of people whose body will slowly decay until they finally die, fully aware of what's happening to them (as opposed to the relative few that got caught in the blast). Also of course the area will stay contaminated for decades - Tchernobyl being a good example.

Ultimately I think some weapons are banned just because of their long-term effects, not because they provide a "more humane way to kill". White phosphorus doesn't fit in that category and thus its classification makes sense.

Just one thing: UN-member armies aren't allowed to use it on civilians... does that mean they are allowed to use normal ammunition and shells on said civilians?

[Vykranth]

But more people were killed in Iwo Jima than Hiroshima, the idea that banned weapons somehow create more casualties than conventional ones is absurd, excluding nukes.

586783144[/snapback]

I cannot really agree with that.

Here is a WWI example: in the battle of Ypres in 1915, 168 tons of chlorine gas were released on 22 April over a four mile front. Around 5,000 troops died within ten minutes by asphyxiation.

5000 troops dead in 10 minutes, I don't think you can reach such "effectivness" with conventionnal weapons.

By the way, Iwo Jima was a battle between the Japanese Imperial Forces and the US forces which lasted from February 16th to March 26th 1945 during which 28,000 soldiers were killed.

Hiroshima is the theater of ONE atomic bomb dropped by ONE B29 which killed 80,000 civilians

It's legal for any nation to use on a military target even those that signed the agreement so it's not banned, and the city was evacuated and the targets were military targets so even had we signed it it could be argued that we were within the limits.

586783188[/snapback]

You are right. Technically, it's not a chemical weapon. I did not say otherwise in my previous post. (Again, the coldest part of me)

Yet, this reminds me of the photo of the Vietnam war: Children fleeing a napalm strike

It saddens me that 1972 is so close to 2005.

The bombing of Tokyo wasn't as humane as this, if it's true, but that's a different comparison, however we didn't evacuate Dresden or Tokyo before hand like we did here.  We specifically targetted civilian populations in those actions, not one of our finer moments you'll get no argument here.

586783188[/snapback]

Glad to hear that.

[stanneh]

watch the documentary for yourselfs

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.wmv

the first few mnts talks of america's history of using napalm in vietnam then it moves on to falluja then it moves on to something nobody has talked about here at all

the drill holes in peaples bodies that american soldiers have done as a torcher technique (ELECTRIC HAND DRILL HOLES) to iraqi's if this is the stuff the pentagon and co have been saying cannot be released becouse the peaple will be in uproar then yes they where right this is insane.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I got Iwo Jima and Okinawa mixed up. 107,000 Japanese, 100,000+ Okinawans, and 12,000 US dead in that one action. That one island had more dead than all the deaths attributed to the bombs dropped on Japan together. So I still feel this is kind of an odd side debate over the humanity of the weapons and any idea that unnecessary loss of life is caused by unconventional weapons is usually wrong.

I will not argue thier "effectiveness" however, but as we both know nukes are different than napalm and white phospherous. I don't see what's particularly striking about the photograph, it's sad yeah but would the pic be any different had it been an artillery barrage?

[El Bourricot]

It would have been, the kids' backs wouldn't be covered in burning chemicals. They'd just be full of holes.

[dreamz Veteran]

I will not argue thier "effectiveness" however, but as we both know nukes are different than napalm and white phospherous.  I don't see what's particularly striking about the photograph, it's sad yeah but would the pic be any different had it been an artillery barrage?

586784176[/snapback]

but don't we make the distinctIon? that's why we have certain protocols between what is and what isn't acceptable in warfare.

it's also particularly interesting that facts about the use of the phosphorus, if it is truly acceptable, had been obscured (at least according to the article).

it strikes me as revolting that man is the only species that not only legitimizes death, but searches for new and effective ways of effecting it.

[stanneh]

Update: Given the Evidence braught fourth by this documentary the US Army has been left no choice to admit their using Chemical weapons on iraqi peaple.

Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

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

That's right. Not from Al Jazheera, or Al Arabiya, but the US ****ing 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":

The PDF http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Ed...5/PAGE24-30.pdf

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

look who else is braking the law with these same chemical weapons http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643725.html

[Diffused Mind]

Looks like the Italian press (quoted as the source) is only saying that it alleged by insurgents (also fighting for the hearts and minds of Iraq). The Italian source is only confirming that the Starlight rounds were being used.

Italian Source Translated

I have to be honest it is hard to be sure with a Google translation, but that's what I got out of it

586783256[/snapback]

I translated a good chunk of the first paragraph myself, I don't have enough time for the whole article.

The United States Army has used white phosphorus during the attack at Fallujah in November of 2004.  The chemical agent, contrary to many affirmations of the State Department in a note from December 9 2004, was not used except to find hostile positions, but it was used indiscriminately in districts in the city.  It is how much emerges from a Rainews 24 inquiry raised by Sigfrido Ranucci, tomorrow at 7:35, films of phosphorus strafing and testimonies of former American soldiers.

Tomorrow i'll do the whole article if you want? Online translations can get sticky.