US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

Moriarty

Bullets don't cause horrific injuries? Tank shells don't cause horrific injuries? Everything in a modern day armies arsenal doesn't cause horrific injuries?

dahamsta

Perhaps we could put the anal-retentive semantics aside and agree that since it is /acting/ as a chemical weapon, intentionally or not, it /should/ be banned?

Moriarty

How exactly is it "acting as a chemical weapon"?

Oh and hey, while we're not being anally retentive lets forget about those non-wmds in Iraq. And guantanamo bay. I mean, who cares anymore.. get over it.

Dar

What's the differance between the US killing civilians using an incendiary weapon and Saddam killing them with a chemical one? The self-proclaimed "good guys" have allegedly commited an atrocity on an area containing civilians and you argue semantics.

Moriarty

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Maskhadov

billy the squid wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

The results of this chemical being used on civilians in Iraq is quite gruesome. I figured it best not to link to the documentary itself.

So after accusing Saddam hussein of having chemical weapons, the only way they can think of finding out is to use .... chemical weapons.

Such weapons being used on civilians is banned by the UN. I would love to hear what the apologists have to say about this revalation.

Im sure the White House Iraq Group must have forgotten to include this when they were selling the war to the American people.

Bad buzz:v:

HelterSkelter

Moriarty wrote:

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Moriarty, where exactly do you stand on what happened in Fallujah? Leaving aside the weapons they used, chemical or not, was it right so go in and kill everybody there including innocent civillians?

Hobbes

HelterSkelter wrote:

kill everybody there including innocent civillians?

AFAIR the US military stopped the media from going into the city and told the people in the city who were not fighting to leave. They then made a statement that the only people left in the city were fighters.

Still not good form, but I reckon they will use that as the defense.

breandan

Moriarty wrote:

I'm just pointing out exceptionally poor journalism and flawed rabble-rousing arguments where I see them.

Why not claim the US nuked Falluja? After all it's as true as the claim of them using chemical weapons. Would you argue it was semantics if the article claimed that? If not, where exactly is the difference?

Personally I care not if they are classed as 'chemical weapons' or not, the fact is that what the American military did in Fallujah was wrong and many innocent people died because of their actions. On that note I will leave you and whoever else is interested in such things to continue debating the precise defenition of chemical weapons.

vibe666

chemical, incendiary, whatever, still doesn't change the fact that US troops used a weapon that dissolves peoples flesh on a city containing innocent people sleeping (or possibly hiding, but again semantics) in their beds.

killing anyone within 150m of the blast? (taken from the article)

that could indescriminately kill hundreds of people in a single shot. to me, that sounds pretty much like a WMD to me, whether chemical or not. again, i'm sure someone will argue about the definition of WMD's, but something capable of killing so many people and in such a way to me sounds like a WMD.

If Saddam had used them instead of the US, I doubt anyone would have been arguing the toss about what is and isn't classed as a chemical weapon.

whatever you want to call them, and however you want to get around the fact that what they do is an atrocity, the fact remains that by any definition you want, they were used to kill and mutilate people indescriminately on a large scale.


lets see a show of hands for who thinks the US did the right thing by deploying these weapons in Fallujah and burning the flesh off a whole bunch of people in order to kill them slowly and exceedingly painfully?
[align=right]13.16.137.10[/align]

bonkey

vibe666 wrote:

killing anyone within 150m of the blast? (taken from the article)

that could indescriminately kill hundreds of people in a single shot. to me, that sounds pretty much like a WMD to me, whether chemical or not. again, i'm sure someone will argue about the definition of WMD's, but something capable of killing so many people and in such a way to me sounds like a WMD.

The only point I'll make is the repeated use of "sounds like...to me", but the absence of any reason to believe in your understanding of what a WMD is.

If Saddam had used them instead of the US, I doubt anyone would have been arguing the toss about what is and isn't classed as a chemical weapon.

Hate to disappoint you, but I would. I'm a pedant like that.

whatever you want to call them, and however you want to get around the fact that what they do is an atrocity,

What, in war, isn't atrocious?

the fact remains that by any definition you want, they were used to kill and mutilate people indescriminately on a large scale.

Again the lack of the word allegedly.

lets see a show of hands for who thinks the US did the right thing by deploying these weapons in Fallujah and burning the flesh off a whole bunch of people in order to kill them slowly and exceedingly painfully?

If the US used these weapons, and if they used them in areas they did not have firm intelligence were completely devoid of civilians, then I agree their use was totally unacceptable.

If they had firm, but incorrect, evidence that there were only enemy combatants in the area, I would say that the use was regrettable and should trigger a review of when it is acceptable to use such weapons.

And if the allegations turn out to have been manufactured, I expect the people who insist that the US did do this to either not apologise for their false accusations, or to disbelieve the articles that exhonorate the US and to insist that its all a cover-up.

jc

vibe666

yeah, well, allegedly there's potographic evidence, and a whole documentary with statements from people who were there, saying it's true, so you can allegedly think what you want and argue the toss, but I allegedly disagree with you.

Or aren't I entitled to have an opinion on this?

bonkey wrote:

If they had firm, but incorrect, evidence that there were only enemy combatants in the area, I would say that the use was regrettable and should trigger a review of when it is acceptable to use such weapons.

there isn't ANY situation EVER where there use of a weapon that does something like that to people is acceptable.

even if there had been no civilians within 100 miles of fallujah when this happened, there can be no justification for the use of these sorts of weapons given the damage they do, it's just not right by any standards of human decency, even the low respect for human life americans show for their own countrymen, never mind foriegn nationals.

and you still didn't answer my question.
[align=right]13.16.137.10[/align]

HelterSkelter

Gotta agree with you on all counts Vibe666.

bonkey

vibe666 wrote:

yeah, well, allegedly there's potographic evidence, and a whole documentary with statements from people who were there, saying it's true, so you can allegedly think what you want and argue the toss, but I allegedly disagree with you.

Or aren't I entitled to have an opinion on this?

Of course you are.

I was just pointing out that you were presenting allegation as fact, which is no different to presenting opinion as fact. I wanted to be clear that I was not playing the same game of assumption.

there isn't ANY situation EVER where there use of a weapon that does something like that to people is acceptable.

So what bombs are acceptable? MOAB bombs? Cluster bombs? Ordinary high-explosive "blow your limbs off" bombs?

I'm not defending the actions. I'm pointing out that pretty much all of war is unacceptable, but its a reality we have to live with. The best way that I see of living with that reality is to have conventions which nations follow.

If the US broke a convention, then tell me which one. If they didn't, then you'll just have to accept that this is "merely" another horrible aspect of the reality of war.

even if there had been no civilians within 100 miles of fallujah when this happened, there can be no justification for the use of these sorts of weapons given the damage they do, it's just not right by any standards of human decency,

And yet there is no international agreement saynig as much. We've had armchair experts telling us it meets their definition of what a Chemical Weapon or a WMD is, but not one person producing an international convention showing that the use of these weapons has been banned by anyone.

All we have is more cries of how horrible war is, and how wrong the US is to be engaging in acts of war, only instead of decrying war, we're just picking the latest distasteful aspect of it to try and rekindle some good ol' outrage.

I'm not doubting for a second that this was a horrific way to die. I'm simply pointing out that in war there are very few good ways to die, so I don't see what makes this particularly vile unless it was used without due care for non-combatants.

You're free to disagree, but I don't see blowing up a car in a crowded street as an acceptable way of trying to kill some soldier in amongst the other casualties. I don't see the bombing of Iraq on night 1 of the war as an acceptable way of trying to kill Saddam and/or incapacitate his army. There's very little of the killing in this war that I find acceptable, but sooner or later you have to accept that such is the reality of war. Its about killing people.

even the low respect for human life americans show for their own countrymen, never mind foriegn nationals.

Forgive me if I'm not interested in discussing this point. You'll have to find someone else to discuss your dislike of Americans with.

and you still didn't answer my question.

Which one? The one which implied an unconfirmed possibility was a fact?

I did answer it.

I took some of the various possibilities about what actually happened, and offered my response should it turn out that this is what happened.

If you want a single "I'll take this stance no matter what the truth turns out to be" answer, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't see the world in such simplistic terms that I can seperate my response from what it is I'm supposed to be responding to.

jc

HelterSkelter

bonkey wrote:

Of course you are.

I was just pointing out that you were presenting allegation as fact, which is no different to presenting opinion as fact. I wanted to be clear that I was not playing the same game of assumption.


So what bombs are acceptable? MOAB bombs? Cluster bombs? Ordinary high-explosive "blow your limbs off" bombs?

I'm not defending the actions. I'm pointing out that pretty much all of war is unacceptable, but its a reality we have to live with. The best way that I see of living with that reality is to have conventions which nations follow.

If the US broke a convention, then tell me which one. If they didn't, then you'll just have to accept that this is "merely" another horrible aspect of the reality of war.


And yet there is no international agreement saynig as much. We've had armchair experts telling us it meets their definition of what a Chemical Weapon or a WMD is, but not one person producing an international convention showing that the use of these weapons has been banned by anyone.

All we have is more cries of how horrible war is, and how wrong the US is to be engaging in acts of war, only instead of decrying war, we're just picking the latest distasteful aspect of it to try and rekindle some good ol' outrage.

I'm not doubting for a second that this was a horrific way to die. I'm simply pointing out that in war there are very few good ways to die, so I don't see what makes this particularly vile unless it was used without due care for non-combatants.

You're free to disagree, but I don't see blowing up a car in a crowded street as an acceptable way of trying to kill some soldier in amongst the other casualties. I don't see the bombing of Iraq on night 1 of the war as an acceptable way of trying to kill Saddam and/or incapacitate his army. There's very little of the killing in this war that I find acceptable, but sooner or later you have to accept that such is the reality of war. Its about killing people.


Forgive me if I'm not interested in discussing this point. You'll have to find someone else to discuss your dislike of Americans with.


Which one? The one which implied an unconfirmed possibility was a fact?

I did answer it.

I took some of the various possibilities about what actually happened, and offered my response should it turn out that this is what happened.

If you want a single "I'll take this stance no matter what the truth turns out to be" answer, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't see the world in such simplistic terms that I can seperate my response from what it is I'm supposed to be responding to.

jc

I think everyone agrees that war is ugly and it doesn't really matter what weapons are used, it's not a nice way to die. I think that the outrage though is that the whole reason the US and Brits gave for starting this war was that Saddam has chemical weapons and was prepared to used them on the west. The US and Brits are feeding us this propaganda that they are liberating the Iraqis from Saddam yet here we are presented with evidence that the US used what for most people seem to be chemical weapons on the Iraqis. Some are arguing they are not chemical weapons, I don't know if that is true or not, I am no an expert. All I know is I am sick and tired of this propaganda fed to us by the US Army and picked up on by the media and reprinted without any questions asked. We all know they are there for the oil. They don't care about the innocent Iraqis. If they give a flying **** about democracy they would be in some of the poor African countries who have no oil and would be sorting out the evil dictators there.

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

All I know is I am sick and tired of this propaganda fed to us by the US Army and picked up on by the media and reprinted without any questions asked.

I agree wholeheartedly. The point (or one of them anyway) that I was making is that the GoodGuy[tm] alliance aren't the only players capable of propaganda, nor the only ones to gain from its use.

In short, while I'm fed up of GoodGuy[tm] propaganda, and skeptical of all news which could be exactly that, I do not assume that all news crtical of GoodGuy[tm] actions is automatically true, nor do I think that its acceptable for the critics of this propaganda to be any less dilligent about truth and accuracy of their own claims then they are demanding from the GoodGuy[tm] alliance.

If we're willing to call something a Chemical Weapon or a WMD without bothering to check if it actually is one, where do we draw the line of acceptability with propaganda? Its ok for us to not bother with facts because we're only armchairing here, but when it comes to real lives one has to be more responsible? What about when one is reporting back to the armchairs? No lives at stake there, so why not give the armchair-critics the same level of truth and accuracy that they demand of each other?

jc

Gurgle

Whats all the fuss about ?
The war was nothing to do with WMDs[tm] or Terrorism[tm].
The objectives were the Liberation[tm] of the Iraqi people, and the spread of Democracy[tm] through the middle east.

They're all free in Iraq now, aren't they ?
(Including the tens of thousands who are free of the constraints of that irritating mortal coil we're still stuck with)

Does it really make a difference if they were freed with bullets, bombs, nukes, chemical weapons, or more gradually freed through interrogations ?

Padraig Mor

bonkey wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. The point (or one of them anyway) that I was making is that the GoodGuy[tm] alliance aren't the only players capable of propaganda, nor the only ones to gain from its use.

In short, while I'm fed up of GoodGuy[tm] propaganda, and skeptical of all news which could be exactly that, I do not assume that all news crtical of GoodGuy[tm] actions is automatically true, nor do I think that its acceptable for the critics of this propaganda to be any less dilligent about truth and accuracy of their own claims then they are demanding from the GoodGuy[tm] alliance.

If we're willing to call something a Chemical Weapon or a WMD without bothering to check if it actually is one, where do we draw the line of acceptability with propaganda? Its ok for us to not bother with facts because we're only armchairing here, but when it comes to real lives one has to be more responsible? What about when one is reporting back to the armchairs? No lives at stake there, so why not give the armchair-critics the same level of truth and accuracy that they demand of each other?

jc

The US Army themselves have admitted in their own journal using WP in Fallujah as a weapon (not for illumination):

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

The Italian documentary at the heart of the commentary also contains a representative of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons claiming that “any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... is considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior”

Note also the quote in the following article (by an 'embedded' journalist) regarding "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".

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Hobbes

From that PDF..

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

Doesn't suggest it was used on civillans.

jank

Hobbes wrote:

From that PDF..



Doesn't suggest it was used on civillans.

Well Im sure the US Army are going to admit to cooking civilians alive now :rolleyes:

Instead of defining a Chemical weapon, why not define a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Padraig Mor

Hobbes wrote:

From that PDF..



Doesn't suggest it was used on civillans.

That's why I included the final quote re indiscriminate bombing. (additional info: the army has said they only used WP for illumination purposes)

bonkey

Padraig Mor wrote:

That's why I included the final quote re indiscriminate bombing. (additional info: the army has said they only used WP for illumination purposes)

Indeed, but the wording of the article suggests that the commander was being supplied targetting information which he passed on to his mortarers (or whatever they're correctly called).

There's a distinction between not knowing what you've been directed to shoot at, and no-one knowing. Typically, surveillance (drones / AWACS / Apache) does the TAD (Target Acquisition and Designation), and someone else does the firing.

I agree it calls into question the amount of information which may have been known about the identity and nature of targets, but I don't believe it is necessarily indiscriminate. Also note that the embedded reporter is not contradicting the "flush-em-out / kill-em-off" approach, nor offering enough information to confirm it.

I'm not trying to say nothing wrong was done here. I'm saying that we should hold off on the lynchin' party until we have a clearer picture of who did what, when, and why instead of simply deciding how we wish to interpret the information that could tell us what we've decided to hear from it.

As I've pointed out before, it was just such an approach (deciding on a conclusion and interpreting evidence as needed to support this, as oppsoed to use evidence available to reach a conclusion) which apparently got us into this mess in the first place.

jc

Spacedog

Moriarty wrote:

...who cares anymore.. get over it.

Oh yeah, when you put it that way you have a good point, I'm convinced.Guess we all gotta die sometime and I suppose pain and suffering are only electrical signals interpreted by the brain now that I think about it. Don't know what I was thinking, got so caught up in all that compassion and crap that I forgot that no one gives a f.uck, I'm off for a ****! Thanks Moriarty for emparting your wisdom.

Hobbes

Here is the Italian documentry (English Narrator) that has just recently been released. Covers other issues like deaths/explusions of certain media members trying to report on it.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv

CONTAINS IMAGES THAT MAY DISTURB SOME PEOPLE (I feel sick. )

If a fraction of this is true, its going to be a total ****storm for the US. They classed civillian as enemy combatants, so it was ok to attack them.

Moriarty

Spacedog wrote:

Oh yeah, when you put it that way you have a good point, I'm convinced.Guess we all gotta die sometime and I suppose pain and suffering are only electrical signals interpreted by the brain now that I think about it. Don't know what I was thinking, got so caught up in all that compassion and crap that I forgot that no one gives a f.uck, I'm off for a ****! Thanks Moriarty for emparting your wisdom.

*whooooosh*

The sound of my post going over your head. Try checking your sarcasm detectors and then get back to me.

Moriarty

Padraig Mor wrote:

The US Army themselves have admitted in their own journal using WP in Fallujah as a weapon (not for illumination):

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

No one has disputed that the US military uses phosphorus weapons. They're far from alone in using them either.

Padraig Mor wrote:

The Italian documentary at the heart of the commentary also contains a representative of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons claiming that “any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... is considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior”

Explosives would seem to fall under what they would like to define as a chemical weapon. I presume you're equally outraged at explosives being used by militarys around the world? Are you going to protest outside the Dail over the use of chemical weapons by the Irish defence forces?

jank wrote:

Instead of defining a Chemical weapon, why not define a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

'Weapon of Mass Destruction' is already a specifically defined term. The constant misuse by certain people would lead you to believe otherwise granted, but that doesn't change what it actually means. The term is used to explicitly refer to non-conventional weapons in the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons areas.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Explosives would seem to fall under what they would like to define as a chemical weapon.

In the Documentry an ex US military clearly says that WP (Whiskey Pete) is defined as a chemical weapon. Even so there is a quote later on that says "Whats in a name?".

Seriously.. arguing over if its chemical or not is like something you would read in "How to talk to a Liberal" by Coulter.

According to the documentry..
1. Civillians were listed as enemy combatents. This allowed them to justify the use.
2. WP used in the attacks (attacks shown in the documentry) is like a gas/powder dropped on the city. It doesn't matter if you were a solider or not even conventional protection won't stop it.
3. It liquidfies human tissue from the outside and through your mouth and lungs. Once you get it on you, your pretty much screwed.

And all some people can do is argue over what it should be defined as. :rolleyes:

Moriarty

If the definiton of it is such a side issue, why is it that the article and some posts in this thread make explicit references to chemical weapons?

You know as well as I do that there's more to it than just a simple disagreement over the classification of a specific weapon.

Hobbes

*Shrug* I guess we have different priorities. Have you even watched the documentry?

Moriarty

I guess so. Yes I've watched it. What I knew before I watched it: It's shít, but people die in war. Often horribly. What I know after watching it: It's shít, but people die in war. Often horribly. Beyond that..