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: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i really couldnt care less how they died, they died. yes its wrong to kill in anyway, and worse to kill slow, but that is hardly the topic at hand. the fact we used white phosphorus is wrong, but that shouldnt be whats in the spotlight, try to bear with me and look at the bigger picture.


Well no it's not wrong
It is a legal weapon.


they could have used mustard gas, still bear with me and see the bigger picture. THEY LIED. plain out, simple as it can get.

the fact is they lied about using it. whether or not it was humane or right, shouldnt be the topic here. its the fact that we had to catch them red handed with undeniable evidence in order for them to tell the truth. that is by far the scariest part that people are failing to see.


LOL, I can understand why, when you see all the hysterical people here who jump on the catch phrase chemical weapon
There is no comparison to mustard gas as you are trying to imply


It's the same with all the BS about the new SMAW-NE thermobaric warhead, because they didn't say they were using it, there must be something shady about it
Go figure, too many paranoid people out there.


congradulations on missing the entire point of my comment


what i was saying is that whether your opinion of it being right or wrong is irrelevent. what weapon or chemical weapon as some would call it that is being used, is again irrelevent. what the government lies is very relevent.

when they deny it and have to be catch red handed in order to tell the truth makes me question what else they say in every other manner. this is just one to add to the list though. just one more time they lied and got caught. think of the amount of times they may have and didnt get caught...yet

[edit on 17-11-2005 by grimreaper797]




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

congradulations on missing the entire point of my comment


LOL



when they deny it and have to be catch red handed in order to tell the truth makes me question what else they say in every other manner. this is just one to add to the list though. just one more time they lied and got caught. think of the amount of times they may have and didnt get caught...yet


Why did they lie, see my reply. Congratulations for completely missing my point



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
too bad no one knows that wp is not as deadly as everyone claims, infact its never been known to kill anyone in combat, only the explosion when exposed oxygen kills, its effects are like most high explosive bombs, and its argued wp is excluded from article 3 of the ccw and also, the article i refer to, the US didnt even sign.

deny ignorance people.(but i bet this post will be ignored too as facts are being ignored like usual here)


[edit on 18-11-2005 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
too bad no one knows that wp is not as deadly as everyone claims, infact its never been known to kill anyone in combat, only the explosion when exposed oxygen kills, its effects are like most high explosive bombs, and its argued wp is excluded from article 3 of the ccw and also, the article i refer to, the US didnt even sign.

deny ignorance people.(but i bet this post will be ignored too as facts are being ignored like usual here)



gosh , its a shame you do not know ANYTHING about White Phosphorus , as its an incendary agent , and as such BURNS.


many MANY people have died from being exposed to WP . not only in Fullajah but many times in Vietnam as well.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

gosh , its a shame you do not know ANYTHING about White Phosphorus , as its an incendary agent , and as such BURNS.


many MANY people have died from being exposed to WP . not only in Fullajah but many times in Vietnam as well.


BY ITS HIGH HEAT EXPLOSION(extreme heat burns you know) not from wp itself, and wp is used in most high explosives for this reason, but i guess you dont know anything about wp.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
please have a read here:

www.globalsecurity.org...


When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke.


and


White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries.


both taken from the above link



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

deny ignorance people.(but i bet this post will be ignored too as facts are being ignored like usual here)


[edit on 18-11-2005 by namehere]


Nice try at thwarting the incoming - but I'll be ignoring your post because it was WRONG. White Phosphorus is NOT a high explosive. White phosphorus is an organometallic pyrophobic material...it reacts with air and deflagrates.

Let's look at some facts:

Irish government publication on classifications of explosives for transport:

www.irishstatutebook.ie...


Pyrotechnic substance, or article containing a pyrotechnic substance, or article containing both an explosive substance and an illuminating, incendiary, tear - or smoke-producing substance (other than a water-activated article or one containing white phosphorous, phosphides, a pyrophoric substance, a flammable liquid or gel, or hypergolic liquids).


An explosive substance AND an incendiary or smoke-producing substance - and note that in the class G statement above it excludes white phosphorous from the class G because...


Article containing both an explosive substance and white phosphorus.


It gets its very own class - H. And again BOTH an explosive AND white phosphorus - because it constitutes both an explosive hazard from the explosive and a reactive/deflagration hazard from the white phosphorus.

Cornell University:

[url=http://www.ehs.cornell.edu/lrs/labSafety/selfInspections/LabInspect99/(01.3)%20Chem.%20Inv.%20Read%20Me.html]Chemical Inventory _/url]


A Air reactive (combines with air, usually oxygen, upon exposure): White phosphorus, many organometallics.


Note that it is NOT listed as an explosive.

CFR 49, Chapter I

www.setonresourcecenter.com...


Ammunition, incendiary. Ammunition containing an incendiary substance which may be a solid, liquid or gel including white phosphorus. Except when the composition is an explosive per se, it also contains one or more of the following: a propelling charge with primer and igniter charge, or a fuze with burster or expelling charge. The term includes: Ammunition, incendiary, liquid or gel, with burster, expelling charge or propelling charge; Ammunition, incendiary with or without burster, expelling charge or propelling charge; and Ammunition, incendiary, white phosphorus, with burster, expelling charge or propelling charge.


Note that white phosphorus is an incendiary substance NOT an explosive.

MSDS for White Phosphorus

ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk...


Stable. Highly flammable. Incompatible with strong oxidizing agents, strong bases. Light and heat sensitive.

In contrast with the red allotrope, the white (yellow) allotrope of phosphorus is very toxic if swallowed or inhaled, and may causes severe burns.


Note it is a flammable, not explosive. Also note that it is extremely toxic when swallowed or inhaled.

I'm willing to bet good money that the only reason you don't know of some one who has died from white phosphorus is because you haven't looked - and won't.

From the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety in a document entitled A practical Guide to First Aid:

www.ccohs.ca...

Bibliography list on white phosphorus:


White Phosphorus

83. Barillo, D.J., et al. Treatment of white phosphorus and other chemical burn injuries at one burn center over a 51-year period. Burns. Vol. 30 (2004). p. 448-452
84. Davis, K.G. Case report. Acute management of white phosphorus burn. Military Medicine. Vol. 167, no. 1 (Jan. 2002). p. 83-84
85. Eldad, A., et al. The phosphorus burn – a preliminary comparative experimental study of various forms of treatment. Burns. Vol. 17, no. 3 (1991). p. 198-200
86. Eldad, A., et al. Phosphorus burns: evaluation of various modalities for primary treatment. Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation. Vol. 16, no. 1 (Jan/Feb. 1995). p. 49-55


Looks like it burns - and not only that, looks like it burns in a very special way. Takes special treatment even.

It's not that you've disagreed that was irritating. It was that you decided to disagree with pompacity and arrogance and claim others didn't know what they were talking about...

while you were wallering in the ignorance puddle yourself.



[edit on 11-18-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Update!


Independant

US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah - and beyond. Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical

Lt-Col Barry Venable said the incendiary shells were a regular part of the troops' munitions. "I would not rule out the possibility that it has been used in other locations." The Pentagon's admission of WP's use - it can burn a person down to the bone - has proved to be a huge embarrassment to some elements of the US government.

The size or scale of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Iraqi government is unclear, and it is not known when its investigators will arrive in Fallujah. An official with the human rights ministry said that while it was also not known how long the inquiry would take, "the people of Fallujah will be fully consulted". The Pentagon says the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not prohibited.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Cv, sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I agree that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing right.
I think that context is an important word that we should use here, though.

Is the situation so dire that we have to use an incendiary device of the likes of white phosphorous to smoke the enemy out, and while doing so, ignite women and children?

My God, the horrible agony that is inflicted upon the recipient of WP. You know, it is easy so look at a situation in a clinical position when you aren't the one who will see the handy work of the deed. If you aren't the soldier who will do it, and then hear the children, see the women's corpses, won't have to take those memories back home with you and won't have to see your own wife and children and start thinking about it....

You want to win? Is the job really worth doing right, doing all the way? Screw playing with small potatos; go nuclear. The children won't feel a thing, they'll simply demolecularize. The job will be done "right", and at least the kids won't suffer.

What is a worse situation; these soldiers are required to do hideous things, loose their souls and return to American streets, or they don't loose their souls, but their minds because they can't maintain?

Yup, context is important. People heralded breaking the 2,000 dead in Iraq number, as if that is some outrageous number. How many people have died in your state due to homicide and traffic incidents in the same period of time? Those who don't come home aren't the ones I pray for.

I really want to pray for those who give orders like the ones to use WP, but Christians aren't suppose to pray that other humans are sent to the hottest corner of Hell.

A friend's father was in WWII, in the Asian theater. He was a flame thrower, and burned many a Japanese soldier to cinder. He didn't burn civilians, but the enemy. He came back a wreck, and never recovered. He heard their screams in his dreams every night, and they were the enemy. In what shape will these guys come home, those who Willy-P'd collateral?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
BTW, Marg, you always seem to quote your husband on military related threads as if his word is the end all to these arguments. In the last decade there have been millions of people coming and going in the military; your husband is nothing. And if he said that WP is the same as some of the horrible crap we used in nam, he is either ignorant or a liar.

I couldn't let this one get by. Who are you to say that about marg's husband? He served the US as a marine for years, watching over his (our) country. Marg is proud of her husband; that's great.
He owes you no explanation, she owes you no explanation, but you owe her and him an apology.

Every single man or woman that serves our country deserves our respect, or if not that, our silence. Grow up.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I just thought this Document might be Interesting in this Post,

The Fight for Fallujah; TF 2-2 in FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the battle of Fallujah



“WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive Rounds (?) - Shystee]. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Oh, lookie here. The DOD's "virtual naval hospital" USED TO HAVE a page in their Emergency War Surgery NATO Handbook that spoke specifically about the special treatment that must be initiated immediately concerning burns due to white phosphorus.

ONLY THEY TOOK IT DOWN.

Here's the cached page:

Cached

here's the scrubbed link:

www.vnh.org...

Lookie here!


Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus.


Hello! That's not referring to an illumination device!


Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths.


Well blow me down. People have died from white phosphorus!


EDIT: Because this page has been taken down...I'm going to quote the whole cached link - for posterity - and those who want to deny thingies.


Emergency War Surgery NATO Handbook: Part I: Types of Wounds and Injuries: Chapter III: Burn Injury

Chemical Burns And White Phosphorus injury
United States Department of Defense
Peer Review Status: Internally Peer Reviewed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The depth and severity of chemical burns are related to both the concentration of the agent and the duration of contact with the tissues. These are the only burn injuries which require immediate care of the burn wound. The offending agent must be washed from the body surface as soon as possible. Full thickness, third-degree injury of the skin caused by strong acids may result in tanning or bronzing of the skin which will be waxy, yet pliable to the touch, leading the unwary to underestimate the extent of burn.

Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury. First aid treatment of casualties with imbedded phosphorus particles consists of copious water lavage and removal of the identifiable particles, following which the involved areas are covered with a saline-soaked dressing and kept moistened until the patient reaches a definitive treatment installation. If transfer will require more than 12 hours, the involved areas should be covered by a liberal application of topical antimicrobial agent to prevent microbial proliferation and the reignition of retained phosphorus particles.

At the site of definitive treatment, the wounds containing imbedded phosphorus particles may be rinsed with a dilute (1%) freshly mixed solution of copper sulfate. This solution combines with the phosphorus on the surface of the particles to form a blue-black cupric phosphide covering which both impedes further oxidation and facilitates the identification of retained particles. If sufficient copper is absorbed through the wound to cause intravascular hemolysis, acute renal failure may result. To avoid this potential complication, copper sulfate solution should never be applied as a wet dressing, and all wounds must be lavaged thoroughly with saline following a copper sulfate rinse to prevent absorption of excessive amounts of copper. As an alternative to the use of a copper sulfate rinse, a Woods lamp can be used in a darkened operating room, or the lights in the operating room may be turned off to identify retained phosphorescent particles during debridement. The extracted phosphorus particles must be immersed in water to avoid their ignition in the operating room. Inflammable anesthetic agents should not be used with these cases.

Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. The effects of this gas can be minimized by placing a moist cloth over the nose and mouth to inactivate the gas and prevent endobronchial irritation. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths. Hypocalcemia associated with cardiac arrhythmia should be corrected by the administration of calcium.



[edit on 11-18-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Well there is some info in that manual regarding WP

Dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.

Admittedly, it's back in chapter 28, but that's not the point.

The point is, as has been made here, we allegedly lied about the use of WP in Fallujah. Yes, technically, we did:

The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.


A new and clearly under-briefed Ambassador didn't have all his talking points down.

So now the question becomes, did we use it as a weapon, or as an adjunct, an illuminator?

We used it as both, according to Lt Col Barry Venable . I don't know how you can separate the two usages.

Finally, did we use it where we knew, or should have known, ciivilians would be?

That, to me, is a trick question. We would not do it intentionally; even the embedded reporter from San Diego, journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.


The civilians had been pre-warned; we've established that fact. There should have been no civilians in the combat area. If there were, it is unfortunate but avoidable.

We violated no treaties, nulled no signatories. The uses of WP on the battlefield will undoubtedly come under discussion by Congress and the military in the years to come.

But not today. At least not by me.

Edit typo

[edit on 18-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

The civilians had been pre-warned; we've established that fact. There should have been no civilians in the combat area. If there were, it is unfortunate but avoidable.


so , its there own fault (all 100,000 of them) that they got burnt to cinders is it? that and gassed as well (according to the same sources who broke the story of the use of WP)


as Thomas Crowne has said , nuclear weapons would have been a cleaner option.

at least the children wouldn`t have died horribly over a period of days.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I thought we already covered this yesterday, Harlequin. Yes, it is their fault. Cruel, huh? I'm a "sadist", right? I don't think so, but I don't give a rats patootie what you think.

And please prove that 100K number or else drop it.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
your right , for a moment i was thinking of someone else.

The numbers of people who either remained in Fullajah or left the city are very widely varied - some US sources state virtually n one was left out of 200,000 , and other say that many of teh 350,000 inhabitants refused to leave because there home was all they had - hence why teh figure of 100,000 missing or dead is mentioned.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by cavscout
BTW, Marg, you always seem to quote your husband on military related threads as if his word is the end all to these arguments. In the last decade there have been millions of people coming and going in the military; your husband is nothing. And if he said that WP is the same as some of the horrible crap we used in nam, he is either ignorant or a liar.

I couldn't let this one get by. Who are you to say that about marg's husband? He served the US as a marine for years, watching over his (our) country. Marg is proud of her husband; that's great.
He owes you no explanation, she owes you no explanation, but you owe her and him an apology.

Every single man or woman that serves our country deserves our respect, or if not that, our silence. Grow up.


NO, every single man or woman who "serves" our country, at least in the manor you refer to, deserves what they get. You ask who am I to say what I said, read this thread so we dont get too far away from the topic. politics.abovetopsecret.com...'


TC - you can read it too, it will address some of what you said. I think you did read it and said the things you did just to appeal to my emotions. If that is the case, it worked; I concede, and I thank you for the reminder.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I thought we already covered this yesterday, Harlequin. Yes, it is their fault. Cruel, huh? I'm a "sadist", right? I don't think so, but I don't give a rats patootie what you think.

And please prove that 100K number or else drop it.


Yes, we did cover it. This reasoning is callous.

*places self in Ahmed's shoes*

"okay, we have no way out of town, but they are going to be going after the bad guys. we'll lay low in our house, keep our heads down, let the exchange take place and then crawl back out. We'll be fine honey."

damn - I didn't consider the air was going to be set on fire and embedded flaming particles would burn through my soft tissue...

hmm - i'll do it different in my next life.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Something I found after researching abit is that the use of these chemical may have been used on the battler around the Bagdah airport and the odds doings to cover the use of "Special weapons" has been on going since Fallujah assaults.



“At least two kilometers of soil were removed,” he explained, “Exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons.”

He explained that in certain areas where the military used “special munitions” 200 square meters of soil was being removed from each blast site.

In addition, many of his friends have told him that the military brought in water tanker trucks to power blast the streets, although he hadn’t seen this himself.

“They went around to every house and have shot the water tanks,” he continued, “As if they are trying to hide the evidence of chemical weapons in the water, but they only did this in some areas, such as Julan and in the souk (market) there as well.”

He first saw this having been done after December 20th.

Again, this is reflective of stories I’ve been told by several refugees from Fallujah.



The tales of wrong doing in Iraq by the fights and assaults on civilian areas has been on going, both nobody listen to them until now, is pleanty of tales.

Perhaps now somebody will listen, I don't know how reliable is this site but the stories that are in the site are very close to what a chemical weapon may do in civilian areas.

dahrjamailiraq.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

You ask who am I to say what I said, read this thread so we dont get too far away from the topic. politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

No, I'm not going to run off and read any thread. As if it's going to change my mind, one way or the other.

So, don't give the troops your respect. Maybe thanks would have been a better word, I don't know. What I said about what you wrote still stands.




top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join