US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

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

Your Google-fu is weak, young Padawan...

However, the report I referenced that Tabun was used is the excitingly titled "Report of the Specialists Appointed by the Secretary-General to Investigate Allegations by the Islamic Republic of Iran Concerning the Use of Chemical Weapons, s/16433, 26 March 1984"

Excerpt: " Chemical weapons in the form of areal bombs have been used in areas in Iran[..] The types of chemical agents used bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide (Mustard gas), and ethy N,N-dimethylhosphoamidocyanidate - a nerve agent known as Tabun"

If you really wish to read it yourself, it's at http://documents.un.org

This 1984 directly contradicts the 1990 military report you cite. In this instance, the military report is 'suspect'



The 1992 investigations were carried out by Physicians for Human Rights. http://www.phrusa.org/

Further, per http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm, the international weapons inspectors destroyed some 30 tons of Iraqi Tabun between 1992 and 1994, also rather handily demolishing the 1990 report's conclusions that since they had no evidence that Iraq had the stuff, they would blame Iran.

Finally, there's also the motive question. Why, just after the conclusion of a bitter 8-year-war, would Iran decide to conduct a limited offensive into Iraq using chemical weapons?

Much though I am reluctant to refer to any government report as 'wrong', it would appear that this 1990 one is overtaken by the facts.

NTM

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

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.

It was posted on a thread before, as well as I mention this at the start of the thread (from memory) and it is also mentioned in the documentry which I saw after the fact.

I'll have a dig around though if your not happy with that. I am curious why your so adament on disproving it (the thread) even after the fact that its been shown that the US did in fact use it as a weapon.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

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

Personally I think it is more for tit-for-tat reasons. Nukes were not fired for quite some time because the use of them would guarantee the mutual attack using nukes. Likewise with biological/chemical warfare.

You could probably say the same about Assinations too. The second one country declares it as policy and uses it on another country they open up all thier politicians as a target.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Can you show me a link that definitively proves the US (1) said it removed all civilians from falluja before fighting commenced,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_occupation_of_Fallujah
The occupying force on April 9 allowed more than 70,000 women, children and elderly residents to leave the besieged city, reportedly also allowing males of military age to leave.

I checked around, the US did not in fact evacuate every civilian, however did classify the remaining people as fair game.

Incidently also trying to find out that news story again I did find that the use of napalm/chemical weapons (which WP would give that look to the untrained eye I guess) had been reported over a year ago, as well as other things like taking control of a hospital (which is against the geneva convention afair).

Googles a bit contaminated over the WP incident.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000160.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1350926,00.html

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

It was posted on a thread before, as well as I mention this at the start of the thread (from memory) and it is also mentioned in the documentry which I saw after the fact.

I've seen you say it elsewhere numerous times, but I don't remember the US doing either at the time which is why I'm asking for links now. You wouldn't be continually repeating things that aren't infact true, would you?

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

You wouldn't be continually repeating things that aren't infact true, would you?

Are you insinuating I am lying?

As I have mentioned before I am more then willing to back up what I am saying with sources and I certainly expect others to do that same as per the charter.

Those sources may be wrong, your more then welcome to show they are wrong if you believe that.

Moriarty

Can you show me a link which proves that the US offically classified every non-US/Iraqi military person inside Falluja as an enemy combatant?

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Can you show me a link which proves that the US offically classified every non-US/Iraqi military person inside Falluja as an enemy combatant?

It is mentioned in the documentry. Link is earlier in the thread.

From documentry wrote:

"It comes across the radio as a general transmission... we have speakers in our trucks. 'We're going to drop some Willy Pete.' 'Roger. Commence bombing'"

"We were told going into Fallujah that every single person going into the combat area that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant. . . It seemed like just a massive killing of Arabs. It looked like just a massive killing. . . Burned bodies. Burned children. Burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately."

Also if you bother to use google you will find various reports of it. You can use them to find sources.

Moriarty

So lets get this straight. You have no actual proof beyond hearsay? But you're repeating it like undisputed fact continually?

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

So lets get this straight. You have no actual proof beyond hearsay? But you're repeating it like undisputed fact continually?

I have given you the sources to go check. Now if you don't like please find me where the US government has denied this?

The people talking in the documentry are US soliders who were there and are going on record. It is not hearsay. Hearsay is me saying "My friend told me he heard these guys said WP was used there". For someone so pedantic on terms I am surprised you don't know this.

These same soliders who claimed it was being used while the US was originally denying its use.

I'd also like to add that this sort of thing is hardly new. There was a similar report of US soliders being told that all people in Afganistan were "shoot to kill" even children. I am sure you will want a link for that too, so give me some time as the news story is about 4 years or so old.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

I have given you the sources to go check. Now if you don't like please find me where the US government has denied this?

Actually you haven't. You've done the equivalent of 'go google, sure EVERYONE knows that' after I asked you for a specific hard link to back up what you've been saying.

I'm glad we resolved that. What's the offence for lying in here anyway?

Hobbes

Actually I gave you a google with the search terms to help you. There is also the documentry earlier in the thread. You are actually reading what people are linking to? Or just arguing for the sake of it.

Btw, the charter claims that you have to back up accusations with sources. I have. You claim those sources are not true it is up to you to back up that accusation. I await your research.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Actually I gave you a google with the search terms to help you. There is also the documentry earlier in the thread. You are actually reading what people are linking to? Or just arguing for the sake of it.

I've read everything you've quoted and I watched the documentary when this thread was first created. Nothing you've linked to has proven that the US military did either of the things you claimed before I challenged you.

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, the charter claims that you have to back up accusations with sources. I have. You claim those sources are not true it is up to you to back up that accusation. I await your research.

You've brought "facts" to the table, the onus is on you to back them up when challenged. So far you haven't. I'll repeat it again. 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? Since you've made exactly these claims in this thread and others, surely you must be able to link me to an impartial source of some sort (hell, you'd imagine there would be something about this on offical US military sites for something like this) that says what you've claimed.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Nothing you've linked to has proven that the US military did either of the things you claimed before I challenged you.

I have backed up what I have said. The documentry clearly has two soliders who were there on record. Now you can certainly claim they are lying and I would be very interested where your research is to say they are lying.

However to say that I am lying is incorrect. I have shown you the source I quoted. You think the source is wrong, prove it.

As for the people being removed, you are right in that regard. I was incorrect in the timeframe however wikipedia link clearly states people were removed at an earlier time (hence my confusion) and gives you links to check the sources on who put that in. Nice thing about wikipedia is if you think it is wrong you can go update it. Just make sure you put in sources instead of just claiming someone is lying.

Now there are two options regarding this.
1. They declared them enemy combatents. This would make the attack legal (certainly in US legal sense).
2. They didn't declare it and knew they were killing civillians.

However as I said there are reports of the US declaring "Fallujah empty of eveything except the enemy". You can take this as they evacuated everyone (which I cannot find for that timeframe) or that they just declared everyone a hostile target.

.. edit. whoops. Here you go, about the civvies evacuated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury

Before beginning their attack, American and Iraqi forces established checkpoints around the city to preventing anyone from entering the city and detecting insurgents attempting to flee. By the time the attack was launched, the vast majority of the civilian population, estimated at about 350,000 before the war, had left the area.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Now there are two options regarding this.
1. They declared them enemy combatents. This would make the attack legal (certainly in US legal sense).
2. They didn't declare it and knew they were killing civillians.

Actually, there's a third:

3. They didn't declare it, and accepted that there was a resultant probability that some of who & what they targetted could be civilians.

Interestingly, this option would match with the "acceptable limitation of risk" approach that was taken in the bombing of Baghdad at the outset of this whole affair. And we've seen the same type of thing in Afghanistan where ppl were warned in advance that trouble was coming.

The care taken with civilian life in any act of war only goes so far. This is an intrinsic given when warfare and civilians are not kept 100% seperate. You don't allow human-shield tactics to prevent military operations. The public were given notice, and some choose to disregard that. The US were never going to call off their attack simply because some people refused (whether freely or through co-ercion) to move peacefully out of harms way.

So the only question remaining is whether or not they exercised due care knowing about the civilians remaining. This, strangely, seems to be the one question not being even asked. What constitutes due care in time of war?

I know this line of reasoning is still open to the "everything about war is wrong" criticism, but lets face it....that hardly makes Fallujah a noteworthy case, does it.

Moriarty

The US acknowledged throughout the attack on Falluja that there were still civilians in the city. This acknowledgment contradicts entirely any claim that everyone in the city was classed as a combatant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014259.stm wrote:

US forces say they have encountered a few hundred residents, who were given water and food and then escorted out of the city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4006305.stm wrote:

And when they see what they believe to be militants - and these marines are incredibly calm under fire, they are almost unflinching - they do wait until they see a guy with a gun but when they see that, they open up with everything they have got and the question is, how much collateral damage is there going to be?

There's hundreds of different quotes I could show which demonstrates the same line of thinking. Clearly the rules of engagement were such that civilians were expected in the area of fighting. Repeating two ex-servicemens claims and saying they count for more, or are even in any way vaguely equal in reliability is farcical.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

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

Can you say which legal methods of killing people in war are OK, given that you seem to be judging on a moral rather than legal stance.

Some of them have to be OK, or the actual method used here is irrelevant....so rather than argue in circles why not just establish where the boundary is.

The stuff remains where it is sprayed and people touching it will recieve burns as well.
...
Actually according to the documentry putting water onto it actually makes it worse.

Although from seperate posts, these two points are worth considering beside each other.

Putting water on WP is bad because WP can ignite on contact with water. Thus, if it is burning, then pouting water will only make it burn worse.

Why is this important? Because it also suggests that the notion that it "remains where it is sprayed" cannot be true. If it gets hit with water, it will catch fire. Not only that, but WP will ignite spontansously as soon as tehre is enough ambient heat.

So one warm or wet day, and it won't stay "where it was sprayed".

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread about the US having been reported to be washing down areas with water after they secured them, and people were billing this at the time as trying to cover up something seekrit and terrible. It would seem to me that the most likely solution is that they were ensuring as far as was possible that no WP remained unignited.

But lets not give them any credit...right? The stuff is scary because it burns so easily, and we can't possibly give them credit for trying to make sure that it didn't pose a threat to anyone after its tactical purpose had been fulfilled.

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

But lets not give them any credit...right? The stuff is scary because it burns so easily, and we can't possibly give them credit for trying to make sure that it didn't pose a threat to anyone after its tactical purpose had been fulfilled.

lets assume that's exactly what they were doing rather than erasing the evidence of their actions by destroying what remained of the substance. Heaven forbid an international reporter stumble onto the scene after the US forces vacate the area in order to be able to document it's effects and usage first hand.

The fact that they were sparying large areas with water probably goes more to show how widespread the use was rather than their seeming benevolence as you seem to be trying to suggest.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

lets assume that's exactly what they were doing rather than erasing the evidence of their actions by destroying what remained of the substance.

Lets assume it was a cover-up then. Its still utterly irrelevant to the case at hand to claim that the stuff is dangerous because it just stays where its laid and so forth....because the point is that it wasn't left there, or that serious efforts were taken to ensure it didn't.

For whatever reason - it doesn't matter what - the stuff was removed. It was washed away. And if there is any doubt that it was washed away....is there any evidence of people having suffered the effects of WP after the US pulled out of Fallujah and allowed the civilians back in???

The threat that might have existed had it been left lying around didn't exist, but is being thrown about as a real and terrible consequence of the US having used WP in a civilian area.

The fact that they were sparying large areas with water probably goes more to show how widespread the use was rather than their seeming benevolence as you seem to be trying to suggest.

I don't recall using the word large in relation to the size of the areas. I didn't do so because I don't recall the articles in question referring to large areas. Do you have some source which suggests otherwise?

Whats a large area? Fire one or two rounds in a street, and there's perhaps enough unpredictable "blast residue" to merit washing down the entire street. Is that a large area? Is one or two rounds "widespread use"?

I do notice, however, that in response to a post which was basically trying to show how aspects are being blown out of proportion to cast the use in as bad a light as possible, you re-interpret "area" to mean "large area", and from this conclude (or at least suggest) that "large area" == "widespread use".

Maybe I can make it simpler....

If we are not going to base our judgements on the facts, but rather on speculation of what the facts might have been without acknowledging that it is speculative then we're wasting our time. We might as well be done with it and criticise the US for using VX gas through Fallujah before raping and killing the population, which they followed up with napalm to burn the evidence away. They didn't do that either, but hey....why start applying restrictions to what we can assume with not just a lack of evidence, but even with evidence suggesting the contrary.

Seriously. If we do not pay attention to what we know, what is the point? Why not just start a thread called "witchunt Amerca" and let people make up whatever they like to "prove" how bad those USians are by making up whatever they like.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

Interestingly, this option would match with the "acceptable limitation of risk" approach that was taken in the bombing of Baghdad at the outset of this whole affair.

No they are completely different. Bombing of Iraq was fixed targets within the city. Fallujah they bombed the city with weapons not designed to be precision based.

As pointed out they had evacuated the majority of the population at this stage so even knowing that further civillians were in the city would imply that they broke the law (as they have said WP is not to be used on civvies).

Can you say which legal methods of killing people in war are OK, given that you seem to be judging on a moral rather than legal stance.

When you mean people, do you mean soliders or non-combatents. In the case of soliders each is more or less fair game, however personally I'd find anything that was designed to have long lasting damaging effect to the area or passed on by a solider after end of hostilities to be immoral.

As for non-combatents I don't believe anything is morally acceptable if you are intentionally targetting them. Thats pretty much what defines a terrorist vs a solider.

so rather than argue in circles why not just establish where the boundary is.

You are asking a question I am asking too. If WP is not such a big deal to use then if we think that way why not just nuke the town, or neutron bomb (so we don't do damage to buildings).

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread about the US having been reported to be washing down areas with water after they secured them, and people were billing this at the time as trying to cover up something seekrit and terrible. It would seem to me that the most likely solution is that they were ensuring as far as was possible that no WP remained unignited.

Absolutly. However considering they were denying its use until it was let slip in a US miltary magazine it is understandable why people are having other ideas.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Originally Posted by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014259.stm
US forces say they have encountered a few hundred residents, who were given water and food and then escorted out of the city.

Hmmm, out of an estimated 50,000 still in the city? (source: Your link) and only 1,200 insurgents killed. Using weapons which are strictly not allowed to be used on civillians. Granted that figure can't be verified but even if it was 10%-5% it would still be a horrible figure.

It also mentions that they removed 300,000 from the city beforehand. (which you said I was wrong about).

There's hundreds of different quotes I could show which demonstrates the same line of thinking.

What line of thinking is that then? Because you asked me to prove that they removed people from the city. I showed you it, and you have even shown it (So I am not sure why you asked me to prove if you already knew this).

Second you ask me to prove they mentioned everyone is a target, I pointed a source. You which I admit discredited. However the report from BBC clearly shows they were pretty indiscriminate about who they killed within the city. So are you saying they intentionally targetted civilians?

Moriarty

I never said that the US didn't remove people from the city. I questioned your sources when you said that the US had removed all civilians from the city and categorised anyone left as an enemy combatant. This didn't happen. That's all I was intrested in finding out.

I also suggest you look up the word 'intentional' in the dictionary. You patently don't understand the meaning of the word if I'm to go by your last two sentances.

Hobbes

So what word would you use to bomb a city where you know non-combatants are?

removed all civilians from the city and categorised anyone left as an enemy combatant

Well if you did the latter, then you would magically do the former. Which was the point I was getting across earlier. I know full well there were still civilians in the city (I have to use [sarcasm] instead of :rolleyes: more often).

The US are claiming they didn't target civilians with WP yet at the same time they knew they were there? With 50,000 vs 1,200 numbers (estimates) that would clearly say to me that weapons such as WP should not be used.

Moriarty

If it says that to you, that's great.

/me shrugs

Hobbes

What does it say to you? Or you going to continue attacking me rather then the post.

Moriarty

It doesn't say anything to me. I don't know what the situation was like on the ground when WP was used. I have no idea whether the civilians that were left were evenly spread over every part of the city, or most holed up in specific portions. I have no idea if there were any civilians within half a mile of where WP was used. I have no idea if a single civilian was actually killed/injured from WP injuries, or if it was purely 'enemy combatants' who were hit with it. I have no idea if, when WP was fired and possibly civilians were killed/injured from it whether US forces knew they would be in the line of fire when they ordered in that fire, or what situation those forces were in at the time.

Bloodychancer

Moriarty wrote:

It doesn't say anything to me. I don't know what the situation was like on the ground when WP was used. I have no idea whether the civilians that were left were evenly spread over every part of the city, or most holed up in specific portions. I have no idea if there were any civilians within half a mile of where WP was used. I have no idea if a single civilian was actually killed/injured from WP injuries, or if it was purely 'enemy combatants' who were hit with it. I have no idea if, when WP was fired and possibly civilians were killed/injured from it whether US forces knew they would be in the line of fire when they ordered in that fire, or what situation those forces were in at the time.

So basically your position is that you trust the US not to target civilians

As no one could ever provide you with the level of prove you would require as the US could label pretty much anyone killed by WP as a combatant
Also the area was pretty much sealed off so there will not be the kind of prove that could definitively prove that civilians were killed.

As their is no definitive proof (ie video photographs etc ) I would base my belief on the balance of probablilities
I do not believe that there is any way that all civilians could have been evacuated your earlier link proves that
So it is a fact that civilians were in the battlezone it is a fact that the US used WP in the Battlezone. On the balance of probabilities given the US history of murdering civilians in previous conflicts and the current administrations lack of respect for any international treaties or conventions I do not believe that the US forces would be overly concerned with preserving the lifes of innocent civilians unlucky enough to be caught in the Battlezone.

I think the US lack of respect for international conventions and the life of innocent people is clearly demonstrated in the recently revealed desire by Bush to bomb a TV station in a country that is actually an ally of the US if that is how they would treat the civilian population of an ally what chance would a hostile civilian population stand.

Moriarty

Bloodychancer wrote:

So basically your position is that you trust the US not to target civilians

Pretty much, yeah.

Bloodychancer wrote:

As no one could ever provide you with the level of prove you would require as the US could label pretty much anyone killed by WP as a combatant
Also the area was pretty much sealed off so there will not be the kind of prove that could definitively prove that civilians were killed.

Why would they want to kill civilians? The US military is not hard-of-thinking. Neither are the majority of soldiers on the ground. They know that every civilian they kill in Iraq is a recruiting agent for 5 more people to shoot at them. Even if you think they're heartless automatons without a smidgen of compasion, they're smart enough to realise that not killing civilians leads to greater chances of self-preservation down the road.

Bloodychancer wrote:

As their is no definitive proof (ie video photographs etc ) I would base my belief on the balance of probablilities

(and pre-conceptions and emotional/political baggage you bring to the arguement)

Bloodychancer

Moriarty wrote:

Pretty much, yeah.

Well perhaps you should research the US armies History including recent it might dent your faith in the basic humanity of people trained to Kill.

Moriarty wrote:

Why would they want to kill civilians? The US military is not hard-of-thinking. Neither are the majority of soldiers on the ground. They know that every civilian they kill in Iraq is a recruiting agent for 5 more people to shoot at them. Even if you think they're heartless automatons without a smidgen of compasion, they're smart enough to realise that not killing civilians leads to greater chances of self-preservation down the road.

I presume you have heard of My Lai in vietnam where the US army Murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians including women and children having first tortured and raped them

On May 4, 2004, United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored

That is on top of the near 3 million civilians killed in indiscriminate bombings in Vietnam and 200,000 in Laos and Cambodia

Perhaps you could explain why they wanted to kill those people or indeed the 100,000 they have killed so far in Iraq

The US has along history of atrocities on civilians stretching back to its foundation against the Native Americans through its own civil war and virtually every conflict it has been involved in since.

Moriarty wrote:

(and pre-conceptions and emotional/political baggage you bring to the arguement)

And you bring what anylitical detachment My views are based on my knowledge of the US armies conduct in relation to civilians in the past and the fact that they are behaving in a similar fashion again in Iraq
http://www.counterpunch.org/schor08242004.html

Victor

Moriarty wrote:

Why would they want to kill civilians?

Its convenient. Rather than send in lots of soldiers in that might [strike]loose me my promotion[/strike] get killed. Lets just engage with overwhelming medium and long range firepower.

Moriarty wrote:

The US military is not hard-of-thinking.

Yes, some do think very hard and long. Some think about the John Wayne send in the armor approach. Some think about the silver bullet approach. Some think what can we do to decapitate the enemy. Some are trying to find that last loophole to see what they can get away with. Some are wondering "what happens a population when you rain phosphorous on them so intensely tha tthe can't escape the fumes"

Moriarty wrote:

Neither are the majority of soldiers on the ground.

You will see the whole range of human behavior in a war zone - from "I bagged some" to "I will take casualties before I engaged in a disproportionate response"

Moriarty wrote:

They know that every civilian they kill in Iraq is a recruiting agent for 5 more people to shoot at them.

"Not if you kill them all. Kill the whole family and there won't be brothers and sons to fight next week". I paraphrase.

Moriarty wrote:

Even if you think they're heartless automatons without a smidgen of compasion, they're smart enough to realise that not killing civilians leads to greater chances of self-preservation down the road.

Yes and no. One American battallion commander estimated that his unit had killed 600 people during his tour. The vast majority of them being over-reactions at checkpoints.