US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

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..

Bunny

Moriarty wrote:

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..

I thought the war was over? I remember at the time there seemed to be little surprise that the Americans had bombed the hospital to prevent witness reports from doctors/casualties, that ambulances were being regularily shot to pieces, that many civilians were being found with neat little holes in their heads (snipers) and that strange explosions were being seen in the city despite the media blackout. The use of WP is not surprising, as is the use of cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs (the Russians dropped fairly big ones on the civilians of Grozny in Chechnya, noone batted an eyelid) but as an army of self-righteous liberation in a supposed post-war cleanup (making an example of Fallujah) it seems a tad hypocritical to be using such weapons.

In World War 2 the soldiers who operated the flame throwing tanks were very often shot outright if they were captured because few of the soldiers on either side had much sympathy for that kind of weapon. If people die horribly in war why just not gas Fallujah? drop nerve gas on them?

bonkey

Bunny wrote:

I thought the war was over? I remember at the time there seemed to be little surprise that the Americans had bombed the hospital

But there was outcry here and in plenty of other palces about the bombing of the hospital.

to prevent witness reports from doctors/casualties,

Is that fact or speculation?

that ambulances were being regularily shot to pieces, that many civilians were being found with neat little holes in their heads (snipers) and that strange explosions were being seen in the city despite the media blackout.

All of which clearly only allied weaponry could do?

tallus

I think Bill Hicks summed it up well when he quipped .. Tony Blair to G.W.B.: How did you know the Iraqis had WMD? .. to which G.W.B. replied :
We kept the reciepts .......

the_syco

Someone said that a bomb that killed people 150m away is a WMD. Had a great giggle there. Most bombs that are dropped from a plane will do that. Its also called shrapnel.

Also, as for saying what should be a chemical weapon due to its contents, well, if you look @ any bomb, you'll find some sort of chemical in it.

So it incinerates people. Big deal. Its hardly going to give them long life, is it? Do you have a better way to kill people that you have no access to, and they don't want to talk. They just want you to either lay down your weapon on convert to their religon, or die. Which do you want to do? To become one of them, or kill them?

A Dub in Glasgo

the_syco wrote:

Someone said that a bomb that killed people 150m away is a WMD. Had a great giggle there. Most bombs that are dropped from a plane will do that. Its also called shrapnel.

Also, as for saying what should be a chemical weapon due to its contents, well, if you look @ any bomb, you'll find some sort of chemical in it.

So it incinerates people. Big deal. Its hardly going to give them long life, is it? Do you have a better way to kill people that you have no access to, and they don't want to talk. They just want you to either lay down your weapon on convert to their religon, or die. Which do you want to do? To become one of them, or kill them?

completely missed the point

This weapon was used indiscriminately in a city. It was used against civilians and insurgents alike. You are right, any weapon can kill indiscriminately, why don't we just nuke the city and get it over with then?

It was an act of terrorism pure and simple

tallus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

completely missed the point

This weapon was used indiscriminately in a city. It was used against civilians and insurgents alike. You are right, any weapon can kill indiscriminately, why don't we just nuke the city and get it over with then?

It was an act of terrorism pure and simple

They are also bound to the rules of the geneva convention

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It was an act of terrorism pure and simple

Are you saying that they deliberately targetted what they knew to be civilians? That their intent was to frighten the remaining civilian populace?

Criminal negligence, perhaps. War crime (at a stretch), were they given orders to kill everything that moved despite knowing there were still civilians. But terrorism?

Is terrorism now redefined to be any act which ends up killing civilians through showing disregard to their life (if thats what happened here)?

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

Are you saying that they deliberately targetted what they knew to be civilians? That their intent was to frighten the remaining civilian populace?

In my opinion, yes

Criminal negligence, perhaps. War crime (at a stretch), were they given orders to kill everything that moved despite knowing there were still civilians. But terrorism?

Most people seem to have the opinion that you cannot be terrorised by states.

Is terrorism now redefined to be any act which ends up killing civilians through showing disregard to their life (if thats what happened here)?

No redefinition by me, I have always understoood that to deliberately target civilians in order to terrorise them is terrorism.

Zulu

tallus wrote:

They are also bound to the rules of the geneva convention

You're not going to try and argue that point? :eek: ...before you do - check the ligitmacy of...
a) pre-emptive strikes,
b) "enemy combatants",
c) Camp X-ray/Gitmo and the likes,
d) the treatment of prisoners in Abu Garave (or however its spelt) etc.,
e) outsourcing tourture.


:v: :v: :v: Geneva convention :v: :v: :v: what a hoot!

Sand

Watched that video there. I got the impression of a blatant agenda, from stuff like

Q) "you were ordered to shoot 10 year old children?!?!"
A) "Anyone with an AK-47 was a target"
Q) "SO- YOU WERE ORDERED TO SHOOT CHILDREN!

Despite dealing with the battle of Fallujah I dont recall the documentary asking why the US was in Fallujah, nor do I recall the documentary asking what steps the US took to limit civillian casualties.

Guys from a human rights group set up in Fallujah in 2004 (wonderful track pedigree, a lobby group criticising the US set up in the heart of insurgency central) are given the platform with no tricky questions about who their backers are.

As for the evidence of use of WP as , the evidence is hardly open and shut. Photos of burnt bodies are not unexpected in a battlezone, and the determination that a body is that of a civillian is to check whether they have a flak jacket. Because all insurgents have flak jackets. No insurgent would leave the house without a flak jacket. Makes you wonder why the US has such a hard time finding them in Iraq.

None of those interviewed presented any evidence of WP being used as an bombardment weapon. The marine can only tell us with great difficulty that it was announced when WP was being used. Used for what? The Italian journalist can only tell us she heard unconfirmed rumours, and demonstrates her partiality doing so. Ive heard rumours that it was the Jews who attacked the WTC.

And whilst the US are nefarious enough to apparently use chemical weapons, theyre dim enough to let civillian doctors in to deal with the dead, thus revealing to the world their plot? With people this dim, and with serving soldiers ready to testify and evidence apparently all over the place why arent their any convictions?

And I loved the ex-Labour one at the end, going on about how Saddam was no threat to anyone. Like Sean Penn she must believe Saddams Iraq was a land of chocolate, and rainbows.

rsynnott

Nuttzz wrote:

WP isnt a new weapon, nor is its use banned by any treaty.

WP is a horrific weapon, a link to the documentry might be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

Use on civilians or near civilians is banned by the Convention on Conventional weapons (as mentioned in that article), but the US are not a signatory to the WP section. Thus there is no legal issue, but a clear moral issue.

Memnoch

it's great,
when you are a muslim country that doesn't agree to follow international treaties you are a rogue state,

but when you are the USA and act in defiance of such treaties you are a beacon of freedom and justice.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

The comment is valid, as consistency across threads and posts is an important function of the credibility of what a poster posts.

Hmmm... Is it really valid considering he has brought NI into this thread and glibly accused me of hypocrisy without a shred of evidence!! Strange one that!!

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hmmm... Is it really valid considering he has brought NI into this thread and glibly accused me of hypocrisy without a shred of evidence!! Strange one that!!

I dunno - perhaps you could have addressed the comment?
I'll ask you in the absence of the poster then.
Do you think the IRA were wrong to bomb pubs in England when they knew they were bound to be civilians killed?
And do you think SF are wrong to cheer the people that did that and similar at their conferences?
Isnt it the exact same thing that Bush does with regard to those that performed for him in Falluja?
He lauds them aswell doesnt he?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

I dunno - perhaps you could have addressed the comment?
I'll ask you in the absence of the poster then.
Do you think the IRA were wrong to bomb pubs in England when they knew they were bound to be civilians killed?
And do you think SF are wrong to cheer the people that did that and similar at their conferences?
Isnt it the exact same thing that Bush does with regard to those that performed for him in Falluja?
He lauds them aswell doesnt he?

Hang on a minute here..... I have no problem answering the McCartyite questions but since when was it policy on Boards.ie Politics forum to question people about totally unrelated matter to ascertain what their views are and see if somebody was a hypocrite or not?

I seem to recall a thread earlier this year where I alluded to the fact that nearly everybody is a hyprcrite when they say they do not believe in violence. I also seem to recall that the mods stated it was out of bounds to raise the issue without specific examples stated of posters on Boards.ie.

Has the policy of Boards changed and it is acceptable to question posters in one thread about their views of an unrelated matter to determine if they are not being consistant and a hypocrite?

I have to laugh but the post in question was not even directed at me directly but referred to in a reply to another person. I ignored it because it was irrelevant to the discussion in this thread or so I thought?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hang on a minute here..... I have no problem answering the McCartyite questions but since when was it policy on Boards.ie Politics forum to question people about totally unrelated matter to ascertain what their views are and see if somebody was a hypocrite or not?

I'd hardly regard it mccarthyite to expect to hold the same values in separate threads.Looking at the post thats what you were asked.

I seem to recall a thread earlier this year where I alluded to the fact that nearly everybody is a hyprcrite when they say they do not believe in violence. I also seem to recall that the mods stated it was out of bounds to raise the issue without specific examples stated of posters on Boards.ie.

Has the policy of Boards changed and it is acceptable to question posters in one thread about their views of an unrelated matter to determine if they are not being consistant and a hypocrite?

No change there at all.You are expected to be consistant between threads and thats something I've always maintained.

I have to laugh but the post in question was not even directed at me directly but referred to in a reply to another person. I ignored it because it was irrelevant to the discussion in this thread or so I thought?

Well do you want to answer it, so I can determine on it once and for all and let that be the end of it.
It's in the interests of all posters to be consistant because it damages the credibility of what they post if they are not.

Hobbes

Well its official (saw it on TV, will dig a link for earthman), the US have admitted that they used it as a weapon in the place. However as everyone there was classed as an enemy combatent its alll oook. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

HelterSkelter

Hobbes wrote:

Well its official (saw it on TV, will dig a link for earthman), the US have admitted that they used it as a weapon in the place. However as everyone there was classed as an enemy combatent its alll oook. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

Well, nothing on RTÉ or Sky News. Also nothing on RTÉ about the 170 starving Iraqi prisoners found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440134.stm). Very disappointing that the media seem to be ignoring this, yet every US soldier killed makes the news. Makes me wonder about RTÉ's motives.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Well its official (saw it on TV, will dig a link for earthman), the US have admitted that they used it as a weapon in the place. However as everyone there was classed as an enemy combatent its alll oook. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

It's ok Hobbes, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it

Note I only entered this thread to moderate

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

I'd hardly regard it mccarthyite to expect to hold the same values in separate threads.

I agree, does that mean we can now go questioning people across threads without offering evidence?

Looking at the post thats what you were asked.

What post? I was not asked anything by RC

No change there at all.You are expected to be consistant between threads and thats something I've always maintained.

I agree, does that mean we can now go questioning people across threads without offering evidence?

Well do you want to answer it

Of course I can answer it. I do not feel it is a valid thing for a poster to do without offering evidence, obviously you do.

so I can determine on it once and for all and let that be the end of it.

Why is it important that you can determine on it when no evidence was offered by the person who first raised it? Usually that is the angle that the mods take in circumstances like this, why has that changed?

It's in the interests of all posters to be consistant because it damages the credibility of what they post if they are not.

I agree but where is the evidence that I am not consistant?

---

To specifically answer your questions:

Yes, Yes, Yes & Yes

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I agree, does that mean we can now go questioning people across threads without offering evidence?

No

What post? I was not asked anything by RC

Actually technically you were, in that the post was an indirect reference to yours and the poster said they would accept that they were wrong if you condemned IRA activity in the same way as you do with what goes on in Falluja.
You've done that so theres no hypocrisy there.
I'm going to actively discourage a repeat performance of this episode by the way unless the hypocrisy is blatantly apparent.

I agree, does that mean we can now go questioning people across threads without offering evidence?

No.
But to be frank,I had you categorised as a SF supporter a party who most certainly are hypocritical on their attitude to the US war and the IRA war.
You dont agree with them-thats fine,glad you've clarified that for me actually

Of course I can answer it. I do not feel it is a valid thing for a poster to do without offering evidence, obviously you do.

I actually approached this from the perspective of being aware of your SF support so I think its understandable given their conflicting stances that I'd be interested in a clarification of yours.

Why is it important that you can determine on it when no evidence was offered by the person who first raised it? Usually that is the angle that the mods take in circumstances like this, why has that changed?

Theres been no change and I was interested in the clarifications for the reasons already stated.
consistency is very important.You've cleared that up.

Now back on topic please.
I'll split this tangent away to a separate thread at the earliest opportunity.

rsynnott

HelterSkelter wrote:

Well, nothing on RTÉ or Sky News. Also nothing on RTÉ about the 170 starving Iraqi prisoners found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440134.stm). Very disappointing that the media seem to be ignoring this, yet every US soldier killed makes the news. Makes me wonder about RTÉ's motives.

Yep, I've never been too convinced about RTE's news coverage; BBC all the way for me, except for local stuff.

And yep, condemning the US blowing up civilians while defending the right of local terrorists to do same is weird.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

No

but it's okay for you to do it I guess? You consistantly tell people to not drag issues from other threads into a topic, yet you can be seen doing so clearly here and it's pointed out by several posters. Off course since you are both debater and moderator you can easily declare them all wrong. Or I guess you will declare that you didn't "sublty" drag arguements from other threads into this one, and well since you happen to be in a convenient position of making a judgement on yourself there is no problem there at all.

As you said above... one can spot hypocrisy when they see it.

or better yet, why don't you make several off topic posts then tell everyone else to get back on topic before making another off topic post to "refute" the points and close the thread. (am i dragging arguements from other threads here or simply asking a poster to remain consistant accross threads.....)

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

It's ok Hobbes, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it

Note I only entered this thread to moderate

Not entirely sure what you mean. Prehaps you can explain in PM? Just if I post something I saw on the TV you immediatly jump on me looking for a source.

A Dub in Glasgo

Gone to PM

Hobbes

Dub... let it go.. If you want to continue the discussion take it to a PM. Safer that way.

Zulu

Earthman wrote:

Zulu if I see a comment from you like that again, You will be taking a spell in the sin bin.
The comment is valid, as consistency across threads and posts is an important function of the credibility of what a poster posts.

Earthman wrote:

It's ok Hobbes, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it

Note I only entered this thread to moderate

Hummmm, I get a warning, but you get to attempt to drag the discussion off topic under the guise of moderating! I'd suggest you argue the point raised here - if your points are valid, that shouldn't be any trouble. ....or perhaps thats the problem?

If thats how discussions are moderated here, save yourself the trouble, I'll refrain from posting in Politics again.

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

Hummmm, I get a warning, but you get to attempt to drag the discussion off topic under the guise of moderating! I'd suggest you argue the point raised here - if your points are valid, that shouldn't be any trouble. ....or perhaps thats the problem?

If thats how discussions are moderated here, save yourself the trouble, I'll refrain from posting in Politics again.

It's not for the posters here to moderate its for the mods.
I chose not to participate in this thread but I do intend to mod it.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

As for the evidence of use of WP as , the evidence is hardly open and shut. Photos of burnt bodies are not unexpected in a battlezone, and the determination that a body is that of a civillian is to check whether they have a flak jacket. Because all insurgents have flak jackets. No insurgent would leave the house without a flak jacket. Makes you wonder why the US has such a hard time finding them in Iraq.

None of those interviewed presented any evidence of WP being used as an bombardment weapon. The marine can only tell us with great difficulty that it was announced when WP was being used. Used for what? The Italian journalist can only tell us she heard unconfirmed rumours, and demonstrates her partiality doing so. Ive heard rumours that it was the Jews who attacked the WTC.

Here's the evidence "straight from the horses mouth"

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1115-29.htm

Moriarty

Repeating the same things again and again doesn't make it true, sovtek. A lot of people seem to miss that point. There's nothing new in that link and every argument it puts forward has been rebuffed earlier in this very thread.

dathi1

As for the evidence of use of WP as , the evidence is hardly open and shut. Photos of burnt bodies are not unexpected in a battlezone, and the determination that a body is that of a civillian is to check whether they have a flak jacket. Because all insurgents have flak jackets. No insurgent would leave the house without a flak jacket. Makes you wonder why the US has such a hard time finding them in Iraq.

Apparently the US occupation force has now admitted the use of WP on Iraqi rebel positions. Problem is..most rebel positions are usually civilian too. A Janes defence analyst also pointed out that WP spews hundreds of meters from the point of impact. The use of Napalm is now also on the agenda.

Hobbes

Yea I mentioned this earlier.. However as pointed out in the documentry all they did was classify everyone that was in the city during the attack as an enemy combatant. That way they never killed civillians and the use of the weapon on non-civillians is allowed.

Eeb

Hey there,
There are people looking for evidence that WP was used? The Pentagon have admitted it was used.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece

breandan

Hobbes wrote:

Yea I mentioned this earlier.. However as pointed out in the documentry all they did was classify everyone that was in the city during the attack as an enemy combatant. That way they never killed civillians and the use of the weapon on non-civillians is allowed.

They may well have clissified everyone in the city as enemy combatants but that doesnt make it so. The fact is the American forces used this in a built up area where there was a large number of civilians which is against international law.

bonkey

breandan wrote:

fact is the American forces used this in a built up area where there was a large number of civilians which is against international law.

Thats not fact.

If you wish to disagere, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding factual information to requalify what "a large number" is.

You'll also find that what you are claiming is against international law is against no such thing.

There is an international treaty where signatories have agreed not to target civilians. The US maintains firstly that it did not target civilians, and secondly the US is not a signatory of the treaty and so is not bound by it. It might suck, and you might wish it was otherwise, but thats how it works. There is no international law which the US is subject to which the current version of events would suggest has been broken.

To make the claim stick that it is against international law, you would have to show that the US knowingly targetted civilians (as opposed to showing that it merely acted with blatant disregard for civilians who may have been in the area). Even then, they'd have to have been signatories of the treaty in the first place, which they weren't, so its a moot point.

jc

Bloodychancer

bonkey wrote:

Thats not fact.

If you wish to disagere, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding factual information to requalify what "a large number" is.

You'll also find that what you are claiming is against international law is against no such thing.

There is an international treaty where signatories have agreed not to target civilians. The US maintains firstly that it did not target civilians, and secondly the US is not a signatory of the treaty and so is not bound by it. It might suck, and you might wish it was otherwise, but thats how it works. There is no international law which the US is subject to which the current version of events would suggest has been broken.

To make the claim stick that it is against international law, you would have to show that the US knowingly targetted civilians (as opposed to showing that it merely acted with blatant disregard for civilians who may have been in the area). Even then, they'd have to have been signatories of the treaty in the first place, which they weren't, so its a moot point.

jc

The US is a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention on the protection of cilivian persons during time of war.

Also would it not be beyond doubt that "large numbers of civilians" would have remained in Fallujah despite warnings to leave
If the US could not evacuate one of its own cities in the face of hurricane Katrina the chances that all civilians were able to leave Fallujah would be impossible.

And deliberately targetting or showing a blantant disregard for civilians would be both be a breach of the 4th Geneva convention irrespective of the weapons used

dathi1

And I loved the ex-Labour one at the end, going on about how Saddam was no threat to anyone. Like Sean Penn she must believe Saddams Iraq was a land of chocolate, and rainbows.

Compared to the current situation she wouldnt have been far off.

Sand

The US is a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention on the protection of cilivian persons during time of war.

Yep, and before they went into Fallujah they evacuated as much of the population as possible, warning everyone in the city that it would not be safe for them to remain. They took *reasonable* steps to protect civillians imo. And again, seeing as were talking GCs and international law it is the responsibility of the *defender* of a city or urban area to evacuate civillians before turning it into a fortress/battlefield.

And deliberately targetting or showing a blantant disregard for civilians would be both be a breach of the 4th Geneva convention irrespective of the weapons used

Actually youd have to prove that the US *knowingly* and deliberately identified people as civillians and then killed them. The Geneva Conventions do not ban fighting in cities, nor do they ban use of weapons on the grounds that civillians *might* be around.

Compared to the current situation she wouldnt have been far off.

Half the reason the insurgents have proven so sophisticated whilst located in the Sunni triangle is that they recruited heavily from the old Sunni minority dominated secret police/intelligence services and military. You think they were marvellous people back when they had control of the state rather than fighting against it?

A Janes defence analyst also pointed out that WP spews hundreds of meters from the point of impact.

Like shrapnel?

Bloodychancer

Sand wrote:

Yep, and before they went into Fallujah they evacuated as much of the population as possible, warning everyone in the city that it would not be safe for them to remain. They took *reasonable* steps to protect civillians imo. And again, seeing as were talking GCs and international law it is the responsibility of the *defender* of a city or urban area to evacuate civillians before turning it into a fortress/battlefield.

Yes and we seen what a good job they did of evacuating their own cities in the face of hurricane Katrina
Just because you tell people that they should leave does not mean they have the capability to leave.
Hence it is not an unreasonable presumption that "large numbers of civilians remained in the city"
Actually it would be the responsibility of the occupying power to evacuate and provide safe areas

Sand wrote:

Actually youd have to prove that the US *knowingly* and deliberately identified people as civillians and then killed them. The Geneva Conventions do not ban fighting in cities, nor do they ban use of weapons on the grounds that civillians *might* be around.

My point was in response to Bonkey who claimed blantant disregard rather than targetting of civilians both are a breach of the geneva conventions.

And I never suggested that the GCs did either.

However what the US did was issue a warning to leave and then treated anyone who remained as an enemy combatant we know that just because someone is ordered to leave even on pain of death does not actually mean that they have the ability to leave. The US would have been aware that many civilians could not leave for various reasons as such the indiscriminate killing of people in Fallujah was a breach of the 4th geneva convention.

Manic Moran

For crying out loud, the amount of emotional response not bothering to look at facts is bordering on ridiculous.

I think it's already been settled that legally WP isn't a chemical weapon (It's categorised as incendiary), and that its use in warfare is legitimate and has been for decades. I think it's also been agreed that it's not a particularly pleasant way to die, though it's questionable then as to what is pleasant. We now get into the niggly bits such as the Convention on the Use of Incendiary weapons.

As an aside, WP is -doctrinally- used by the US military as illumination and smoke, but there is nothing prohibiting its use beyond doctrine other than any relevant international agreements.

So.. on to the convention. There is a blanket prohibition on incendiary munitions delivered by aircraft. Presumably the intent is to prevent another Dresden or Tokyo. The use of other delivery systems, to include artillery, mortars, grenades, flamethrowers etc are permitted as long as feasible measures to reduce civilian casualties are taken.

Now, personally, I think announcing "Lads, we're going to conduct a bit of a fight here, you might want to leave" is a good start in this direction. I would also assume that if the forward observer sees obvious non-combatants roaming around the impact zone, they would be reluctant to call in the assets, unless the tactical situation was such that the immediate fire was absolutely imperative. So let's assume that Sergeant Smith sticks his head up, looks around, sees nobody out and about, and calls in a grid. In between then, and when the rounds splash, local Fallujah family drives around the corner into the impact zone. Or maybe, they don't ever drive into a position that they would ever be visible to the FO. Iraqi civilians do some daft things, but usually they're not suicidal enough to drive into a major firefight. Either way, the 'feasible' requirement of the convention is met. Such casualties are the unfortunate product of having a bit of a war.

It's one thing to be against the conflict as it is. I've no problem with that. I do, however, object to manipulation and misrepresentation of tactical facts and reality in order to support a political position.

NTM