US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

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

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

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

I dont know if that was in reply to my post but my post about a breach of the Geneva Conventions has absolutely nothing to do with whether WP is a chemical weapon or not.

So moving on to the rest of your post it seems strange that you criticise people for not looking at the facts and then go on to base your arguement that Civilian casualties in Fallujah were an unfortunate by product of war on nothing but IFs and assumptions
IF we all assume that the US observed the geneva Conventions then everything is OK however as there were no independent reporters the only evidence that they observed them would be their own word given the distaste they have shown for the other conventions it is hard to believe that they respected the 4th Geneva convention. Of course we could all just ASSUME they did.

In fact given the current US administrations stance on imprisionment with out trial, allowing the CIA to torture suspects, pre-emptive strikes on foreign nations, encroachments of its own Citizens freedom and right to privacy etc etc it would seem that the US is attempting to bring Saddams values to the west rather than the wests Values to Iraq.

Manic Moran

The post wasn't directed specifically at you, just the topic in general.

It is my considered opinion that US troops tend to be a lot more considerate of situations such as care for civilians than many people give them credit for. They do not go around screaming "Let's do the village! Let's do the whole F-ing Village" laying waste everywhere with weapons fire, regardless of what the movies and news media may have you believe. They do tend to get upset when non-combatants are hit.

As to the Geneva Conventions, the wording is very similar to the Incendiaries legislation. "Shall not be the object of attack". There is also a serious amount of wiggle room in the phrase "attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, [...] which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

Who's to say what's excessive? It's not as black and white an issue as you'd apparently like to believe. You may believe that only one loss of life is excessive. It's certainly undesireable. The guy on the ground looking for indirect fire support, on the other hand, may have a different point of view.

I share your discomfort on imprisonment without trial, I'm really not sure I like that concept. Pre-emptive strikes are an acknowledged right of countries, however unpopular they may be to observers. 1967 would be an excellent example of this. (A different argument to the question of if it was justified in the Iraq case) I'm also not sure, however, that those arguments are particularly applicable to the military's conduct in warfare. The military lawyers are pretty clear on that sort of thing, and the UCMJ does not change with the government.

NTM

Sand

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.

A) Mayor Nagan (spelling?) and his buddies ( or bitter enemies ) at a state level and the hurricane itself had something to do with that.
It is not the responsibility of the US to evacuate the city. It is the responsiblity of the insurgents who took the city and used it as a fortress. If you put the responsibility on the attacker, then you are endoring/encouraging the tactic of taking and using human shields - something terrorists dont need much encouragement to do as it stands.

Actually it would be the responsibility of the occupying power to evacuate and provide safe areas

Neither the Iraqi government nor the Coalition was the occupying power Fallujah. The insurgents were. They held the city, they owned it, they imposed their laws and they used it as a springboard to launch terrorist attacks throughout Iraq. To argue otherwise is to struggle against reality.

However what the US did was issue a warning to leave and then treated anyone who remained as an enemy combatant

Oh please. Even in that Italian mockumentary the marine they interviewed was clear. When asked if they were ordered to shoot children (which is basically what youre saying was ordered), he replied that anyone with an AK-47 was a target. I.e. anyone armed was targeted which is perfectly above board.

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.

Again, no. Fighting in cities is not banned. Neither is fighting when civillians are possibly in the area. The GC accepts that civillians will die in war. It becomes a crime when it is premeditated policy to kill civillians. You are simply assuming the US murdered civillians because you feel they did other bad things (see your second post) so they must have murdered these civillians too, and if you have to stretch the definitions to make it fit the facts, then thats what youll do.

Hobbes

While the US did try to evacuate civilians and declared that anyone left in the city was automatically a combatent (thus allowing the use of the weapon morally :rolleyes: ).

What I find comical in this is that when Saddam killed the Kurds he also suspected to have used WP and the US did actually classify it as a chemical weapon in that instance.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE

Manic Moran

Misinterpretation, caused by a similar, yet distinct term.

That report is doing the rounds being used as a 'The US says it's OK only if it uses it' argument.

Please reference NATO Manual FM 8-285: TREATMENT OF CHEMICAL AGENT CASUALTIES AND CONVENTIONAL MILITARY CHEMICAL INJURIES

WP is categorised as a Conventional Military Chemical (legal), but not a Chemical Agent (Evil). The curse of similar sounding names. I wasn`t aware of this distinction in semantics, it`s reasonable to assume that those with an axe to grind would be even more likely to make such a mistake.

The manual is split into two parts. Chem Agents (Politically categorised as WMDs) and CMCs, which are routine battlefield hazards. It starts off with nerve agents, and goes down in severity. Chapter 7 is the first chapter in Part 2, Conventional Military Chemicals
At the risk of going into details, from Chapter 8, Smokes: (Chapter 7 is `irritants` like tear gas, and WP doesn`t even make it into that section)

"Field concentrations of the smoke may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.
Treatment. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid. For treatment of thermal injury due to large particles of burning WP, see paragraph 9-4 b.
Prognosis. No permanent injury results from exposure to WP smoke.

It should be noted that the Part Two of the FM (Conventional Military Chemicals) also covers such things as vehicle exhaust fumes, sewer fumes and ammonia from industrial accidents.

This explanation would appear to be a satisfactory resolution to the apparent conflict we have here between the 1995 report and the current stated position. You will note that even the report cited states that WP was used because Iraq was afraid of retaliation from the US et-al if it used a chemical agent (Nerve gas).

I'll wager that the reason this is all a big deal is because some spineless Pentagon spokesman, worried about his political hide and who couldn't tell an artillery round from a mortar bomb, saw that people were reacting against the WP use, and decided that denying it was a better move than simply saying "Yes, we used it. Almost every army in the world has WP in its inventory. It's distressing to look at the results, but quite legal" This waffling simply fuelled the fires that there was something to hide.

NTM

Hobbes

The legality of it is a moot point TBH. Any country can declare something legal. Take US recent example of declaring everyone in the city a legal target.

Just like trying to redefine what it is a moot point. It is an indiscriminate weapon that once your hit with it your fuked. Wind changes, your fuked. After the attack if you live in the area you are fuked (people die from this long time after the fighting has stopped).

It eats you alive both inside and out. Death does not come fast.

It is clearly an issue of morality. Otherwise if it not such a big deal why not just nuke the city and be done with it?

What I saw from the report was that the US clearly saw WP as a "Chemical Weapon". It is in the report. Fuzziness around the US use of it and weedling to get out and say things like "Hey we were only killing enemy soliders" or "everyone else has it" just makes it all the more sad.

Manic Moran

I'm not going to argue the morality/PR part of it. There are arguments that can be said that politically, the use of WP was a bit of a bad move.

From the legal/military standpoint, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

WP isn't any more indiscriminate than your common or garden 155mm HE howitzer round. It's better at burning things/people, but doesn't poke as many holes in things/people.

people die from this long time after the fighting has stopped
Source, please? I presume you're referring to any of its chemical effects as opposed to incendiary effects. As quoted before, the official military position is that the chemical effects are non-permanent.

What I saw from the report was that the US clearly saw WP as a "Chemical Weapon
Again, I refer you to the distinction between a Chemical Agent and a Conventional Military Chemical.

You may not see the distinction. The rules and regulations, arbitrary though they may be, do. You may lambast users of WP all you want on moral grounds, and you may have justification. Any attempt to use legal grounds "US/UK used banned weapons/used weapons in a banned manner" in support of this, however, are going to fail except in the area of perception, which history has shown need never have any basis in reality.

NTM

Hobbes

I'm not going to argue around in circles. You say its ok because its legal. I say it isn't.

As for source, it was in the documentry linked earlier. The stuff remains where it is sprayed and people touching it will recieve burns as well.

Moriarty

WP injuries can be treated fairly easily. Getting hit by WP doesn't mean you're going to die any more than getting hit with a bullet does. Infact, probably less so. Simply covering the burns with water/wet bandages has the effect of negating any further burning.

Hobbes

Actually according to the documentry putting water onto it actually makes it worse. The suggestion to the US military is to find wet mud.

Does that make it better somehow?

Manic Moran

Actually according to the documentry putting water onto it actually makes it worse. The suggestion to the US military is to find wet mud.


Correct. This goes back to the bireme days of Greek Fire, where sand was kept aboard ship and used to put it out. The mud (or sand, in those days) deprives the phosphorus of oxygen and stops the burning.

Does that make it better somehow?

Nope. Doesn't make it worse either. There are lots of ways to get injured or killed, I have no particular desire to be hit with a 7.62mm bullet, an artillery fragment or an white phosphorous fragment. I get the impression that all are liable to be quite uncomfortable and somewhat hazardous to health.

Phosophorus lying on the battlefield is only a threat insofar as it hasn't finished the combustion process. Once the fuel is used up, that's that. You make it sound like the effect last days, or hours, when in fact it's just minutes.

OK. So we agree that you don't believe that WP should be an acceptable weapon in warfare. That about it?
Out of interest, what else would you have banned?

NTM

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Actually according to the documentry putting water onto it actually makes it worse. The suggestion to the US military is to find wet mud.

Well the documentry is wrong. Surprise surprise. Defined treatment of wp burns is continued irrigation of the burns or covering the burns with saline or water soaked bandages.

Hobbes wrote:

Does that make it better somehow?

Manic moran dealt with that in the above post ^. I did aswell earlier on in the thread as it happens.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Out of interest, what else would you have banned?

Mimes.

Seriously though, why are some weapons banned and others are not? Why not just fuel air bomb the whole city or nuke it? Would do the job nice and easy.

Moriarty

Nuclear/thermobaric weapons are rather indiscriminate. Despite your claims to the contrary, the objective of the attack on Falluja wasn't to kill everyone in the city, it was to clear it of insurgents/fighters/whatever you want to call them.

Hobbes

WP is also indiscriminate. The same argument has been shown above for convential weapons.

As already pointed out the US had said they had removed all civilians from the city before attacking, so using any weapon would of been justified no?

Moriarty

There are levels of 'indiscriminate'. A shotgun can be indiscriminate depending on the situation.

Can you show me a link that definitively proves the US (1) said it removed all civilians from falluja before fighting commenced, and (2) that everyone in falluja was classed as a combatant? Presumeably if the US said this, it'll be on offical military press releases or the like.

RedPlanet

I'm wondering do the same posters that defend the use of Phosphorus rounds (by the americans anyway) also believe that Saddam "gassed the Kurds" in Halabja?
Or do they believe the US army war college's report about it:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

Manic Moran

Artillery is relatively indiscriminate, in that if anything is within the burst area, it might get hit. Chemical agents are indiscriminate in that they burst at altitude, and the aerosol effect is distributed by the wind.

I guess that's the reason one is banned, and the other isn't. (That, and some desire to give the people on the receiving end a fighting chance, I guess)

Seriously though, why are some weapons banned and others are not?

Good question, and I've wondered it myself on occasion. It can be argued that the whole concept of 'rules in war' is complete stupidity, as there are no prizes for 'second place, but well played.' I think forces only follow rules insofar as they are in a position where they can afford to do so.

NTM

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

I'm wondering do the same posters that defend the use of Phosphorus rounds (by the americans anyway) also believe that Saddam "gassed the Kurds" in Halabja?
Or do they believe the US army war college's report about it:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

An interesting, if out-dated (and inaccurate) report. For example, it claims no evidence had been found of Tabun use. Yet six years earlier, a UN team investigating claims found evidence of it having been used against Iranian forces.

Tabun is one of the chemicals used against the Kurds, per the investigations carried out in 1992, two years after the quoted report was written.

Just goes to show, I guess, even the military can screw things up at times.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

An interesting, if out-dated (and inaccurate) report. For example, it claims no evidence had been found of Tabun use. Yet six years earlier, a UN team investigating claims found evidence of it having been used against Iranian forces.

Tabun is one of the chemicals used against the Kurds, per the investigations carried out in 1992, two years after the quoted report was written.

Just goes to show, I guess, even the military can screw things up at times.

NTM

Little point citing a report that alledges something without linking to it.