It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
After the report by Italian news agency RAI last week, the Pentagon has admitted using White Phosphorus in Falujah. The admission of its use is a complete reversal of the position last week when its use was denied completely.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falujah at all.

BBC Defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well they couldn`t really deny its use after the attack was filmed by RAI (and other , now deceased newsmen) who also claim the use of WMD`s (chemical agents) in the city.

I'm sorry but the ney sayers on this forum were wrong, it did happen and has now been aditted to have happened, but there is a pattern forming, only with massive evidence does the administration admit to things, and then only in crouched polital speech.

This does begger the question: Who is the most evil out of the countries involved? As both have used chemical weapons on the people.

Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Nerdling]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Nerdling]




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
White Phosphorous (WP) is NOT a WMD, or a chemical weapon. It's nasty yes, but that doesn't make it either one. It's only banned if targeted on a civilian population. It's perfectly "legal" to be used in combat, if used on enemy combatants, flares, target marking rounds, etc.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Its legal to beat your wife on a thursday in Ohio.

Doesn't mean you should do it.

Watch the video and then tell me you think this weapon should be used.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I've seen the effects of its use before. Yes, it's a nasty weapon, most weapons are. But if it's a choice between that, and carpet bombing a city, or dropping MOAB, to protect our troops, I'll use the WP. At least WP leaves survivors and doesn't get everywhere.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
`AT least WP leaves survivors and doesn`t get everywhere`


erm , yes it does get everywhere - it is seriously nasty stuff - much more akin to naplam than MOAB - in fact , its more like the daisy cutter than anything else.


Cross the daisy cutter with napalm and you`ll see similar effects.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
By getting everywhere, I meant that if someone is in a room hiding next to the wall, it won't necessarily get in there and hit them. It's not going to level buildings, or bring them down. It's going to leave survivors.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
not going to get them???

yes it will , it sucks the oxygen out of the area , and raises the temperature massively as well as spraying corrosive material over a wide area.


so yes , it will in fact `get them`



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Exactly - It will 'get them' and any civilians that may be unlucky enough to be nearby.

I mean seriously, take away the semantics and legalities - this is a chemical weapon.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   
White phosphorus is both a smoke producer and a particularly nasty incendiary agent, known as WP. Its white smoke has the highest total obscuring power (TOP) of any smoke. It was widely used in World War I in grenades and trench mortar rounds to screen troop movements. Most military smokes are now of other types, often colored with dyes. The 4.2-in. "Chemical" mortar of World War II was developed to throw white phosphorus shells, as well as whatever other chemical or biological agents might be required, but was later also found valuable as a general heavy mortar. This was a simple, light, portable weapon of great power, equivalent to a 105 mm howitzer, but of lesser range. It consisted of a tube about 5 ft long, a steel baseplate, and a bipod support with screws for elevation and traverse. The cylindrical round was simply dropped down the tube, and it sailed away on a high trajectory. The phosphorus sticks to whatever it hits, burns, and if what it has hit is combustible, sets it on fire. White phosphorus burns quickly and cooly and so is not a very effective incendiary agent. It is generally mixed with rubber or polystyrene to slow down the burning. Water will put out white phosphorus temporarily, but as soon as the phosphorus has access to air, it will start burning again. White phosphorus wounds are very unpleasant, since the phosphorus must be thoroughly washed out with a nonpolar solvent that is also noninflammable, for obvious reasons, before the burn can be treated. Carbon tetrachloride would be suitable, but it is dangerous because of the cancer hazard.
www.du.edu...

WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.
confederateyankee.mu.nu...

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.

. . . Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them. . . . Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself "why are they dropping smoke here?" the answer "because they are coming right through here." So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.
www.needlenose.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Zaphod , all 4 of those contradict each other : `burns cooly` to ` incinderary agent` - those 2 just don`t work together , same as adding `smoke itself is not dangerous` when clearly there is plenty of evidence to say otherwise.


And don`t forget , what of Red Phosphorus as well , that was used.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   

from Harlequin Zaphod , all 4 of those contradict each other : `burns cooly` to ` incinderary agent` - those 2 just don`t work together , same as adding `smoke itself is not dangerous` when clearly there is plenty of evidence to say otherwise.


And don`t forget , what of Red Phosphorus as well , that was used.

Yes, I'm sure there is plenty of Red Phosphorus in use in Iraq...

from Wikipedia
White phosphorus is used in military applications as incendiary bombs, for smoke-screening as smoke pots and smoke bombs, and in tracer ammunition.
Red phosphorus is essential for manufacturing matchbook strikers, flares, and, most notoriously, methamphetamine.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
A bit offtopic but still. Bushists are welcome 2 re-read again what they posted in this topic.

Falluja WMD horror scoop aired tomorrow

Because we will see this once again. The only diference will be that before the evidence was called bull# and ani american propaganda... now we will see excuses.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I don't know of anyone else, but I stand by everything I wrote in that thread. What is your point?

Once again, as Zaphod has pointed out, WP is not a WMD.

Oh yeah, and what's a Bushist?


[edit on 16-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
So what if it is not a WMD? So what if its not officially designated as a chemical weapon? Its still a pretty horrific way of attacking people.

And yes, the US spokesman did admit that they had used it "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants", not just as a smokescreen...

Did they not learn from Vietnam?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Using gasses that stick to people and burn is not the way to make friends in a war, that is the point. Whatever happened to winning hearts and minds???

Its just seriously bad PR, and even worse for the poor buggers who slowly burn to death.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Well i think we can slowly classify bushism is a radical new age religion.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I'd say Bushism was a cult -

"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   

So what if it is not a WMD? So what if its not officially designated as a chemical weapon? Its still a pretty horrific way of attacking people.

This is war, remember? Because somebody mentioned making friends and influencing people...


Do you think that the US is the only country to use WP, or maybe something even a little more harsh?

I like Goldy's (what's with all the underscores??) definition better.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Yeah, it's war. Do yourself a favour JsoBecky, take a long hard think about why this war started in the first place (or the reason we were all told, anyway), and realise why the implications of this are far more serious than you just brushed them off as.

Derrrr?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
"This is war, remember? Because somebody mentioned making friends and influencing people... "

JSOBecky, Wasn't it bush who said winning this 'war' involved winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people?

Well hes done a cracking job with that, hasn't he?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join