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.

 

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
A US Military Spokesman has admitted that white phosphorus was used during the US assault on falluja last year. This is an embarrasing U-Turn after the pentagon had previously denied the allegations. The story resurfaced after a recent documentary on the Italian Rai TV station.
 



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.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think this is some seriously bad for the US occupation, on both a public relations and humane level.

Not only is the place turning into a bloodbath of epic proportions, but the US forces are now using controversial chemical weapons on their enemies, with serious risk of endangering civilians.

According to one source in the BBC link, white phosphorus can burn a victim 'right to the bone'. Thats not a particularly good way to go in my opinion...

Check the links for a video of the weapon in use.

Related News Links:
www.rainews24.rai.it
news.independent.co.uk
today.reu ters.com
www.stuff.co.nz

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Falluja WMD horror scoop aired tomorrow

[edit on 16/11/05 by Smokersroom]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by asala]




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The most interesting thing here is the denial, and then retraction. Apparently the denial was based upon 'bad information'. Thats bollocks frankly - they lied and then did a big old U-Turn when they got found out.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Being discussed here also:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember, WP is not a WMD.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Hey. get real
Nothing wrong with using white phoz.

It's great for illuminating the battlefield at night, but more importantly, for getting into those little nooks and crannies where the baddies are hiding.

I saw the news footage of white phoz air bursts - way to go!


Seems to me, a mere Brit, that at long last, you Yanks are waging war as it should be - with the kid gloves off!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It is a delicate balance, warfare. If you win by too much, people get nervous and think that you are a bully and say your country sucks. If you lose, people laugh at you and say that your country sucks or that your enemy really taught you a lesson. If we should only win by a little, people say you 'see how much your country sucks? You almost lost!' Our enemies really want a pyrrhic victory, but where is the sense in that? We go to war and then get upset by seeing dead people. Isn't that what war does? Either way we do it, people say our country sucks because we are the great satan.

I would rather be a winner who they say sucks than a loser who really does suck.

Maybe instead of 'willy pete', we should use 'the flash.' The Russians love that stuff. Or perhaps, we should just actually become the great satan and start using those neutron weapons we made in the 80s. Pow! Ok bring in the cleanup crew. No enemies, just previously owned real estate and a really bad reputation.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
No big deal, white phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon and it wasn't used against civilians.

But seriously, you would need to have been one stupid civilian to have stayed in that city after hearing the news of an upcoming deadly conflict.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
No big deal, white phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon and it wasn't used against civilians.


Just because it is not a chemical weapon does not mean that it is legal to use. It is against the rules of armed conflict to use weapons that are designed to cause excessive suffering to the enemy. The Hague convention goes on to specifically mention burning weapons, which WP certainly is. Dropping it in front of a targen as a smokescreen is fine, dropping it on top of a target to burn it to death is not.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by PaddyInf]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Not entirely true. First, the US is not a signatory of any treaty restricting WP use. Second, the treaties that DO restrict it make it illegal to use against CIVILIANS, not combatants.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not entirely true. First, the US is not a signatory of any treaty restricting WP use. Second, the treaties that DO restrict it make it illegal to use against CIVILIANS, not combatants.



That's lawyer talk. If there's 10 people on the street and 2 of them are combatents, who is the lawyer going to say they were targeting?

Obviously thou now the US has admitted to using it, it's gone from being something they'd never do, to an act which is OK because it was only hitting baddies.

Newsflash: This just in, lab reports have found that the Presidents sht does stink contrary to Whitehouse press releases!

This is how all the beliefs of a Police State will come true, there's no accountability for these people, there's always an excuse because they lie and confuse so much that people just refuse to accept the truth when it comes out.

It's like watching an abusive relationship - why won't she just leave him!!!??



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Good Old Willy Peter is pretty much stock in trade weaponry. Of course, it's not used on non-combatants... Every see any of the pics of injuries/burns in Viet Nam, that did not occur due to the use of Willy.

C'mon guys... Like it or not ... This is a war, and for the loss of 2,000+ military and the lack of a date for withdrawal, we need to have the occasional victory.

Otherwise, Bush might lose his popularity.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I am sure Saddam is taking notes in his cellblock: I do not recognize sarin and consorts as a WMD even though it kills horribly and the citizens of Halabja were foolish to stay there after I announced operations against Kurdish fighters.

Defense strategy guaranteed to work.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
White Phosphorus isn't recognized as a chemical weapon because it's NOT a chemical weapon.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
The 'west' (but most specifically the USA & UK) have always had a weird relationship with chemical weaponry.
I suppose WW1 is partly to blame.

'We' always claim a need for it to be able to defend and respond in kind if attacked in that manner but have, to date, always ended up moving from that kind of defensive reasoning to serious offensive consideration (happened in the same way in WW2).

Frankly I find the 'WP is not chemical weapon' somewhat besides the point.
Ditto napalm.
(in fact during WW2 the similarities had the allied commanders arguing about the sense and legality of their use and whether they would provoke chemical warfare as the Germans might well deem a chemical response perfectly justified)

It is clearly a revolting and totally indiscriminate weapon which has been used in an area where many civillians were (and that is so for almost every town or city where fighting is going on, many flee but many people always stay......it happens in every war, for many there is absolutely no where else to go).

.....and the fact that the USA has historically refused to sign various treaties banning such weapons ought to be a thing of shame, not an excuse.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not entirely true. First, the US is not a signatory of any treaty restricting WP use. Second, the treaties that DO restrict it make it illegal to use against CIVILIANS, not combatants.


These conventions do not distinguish between civillians and combatants when referring to the use of weapons that cause excess suffering. They do however prohibit the targeting of civvies with any weapons. The US seem to be of the opinion that civvy casualties are acceptable. They seem to forget that the reason that the war was started was to protect these people.

Or perhaps it was started for a more commercial reason



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
No big deal, white phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon and it wasn't used against civilians.


Just because it is not a chemical weapon does not mean that it is legal to use. It is against the rules of armed conflict to use weapons that are designed to cause excessive suffering to the enemy. The Hague convention goes on to specifically mention burning weapons, which WP certainly is.


Yeah but see the Hague convention only applies in conflicts between countries that have both signed it. The United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use. Im not sure if the Hague convention even covered that the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." in 1980 did and the US never signed it


The US is a member to many parts of the hague convention and other conventions but not that one, That part does not apply to the US since it did not sign it

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 19-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
You mean to tell me that the US is using weapons in a war that actually kill the enemy? My god how dare they! Those evil bastards!


Honestly, as an atheist I sometimes thank god that the world wasn't like this 60 years ago, or we would have lost double the amount of troops in WWII. No Fire Bombing, no flame throwers, no Nukes.

It’s not the US’ fault that the terrorists choose to fight in cities or in civi houses. We cant sit back and say, “well he in the house now, we cant engage him.” If WP was used to target terrorists then so what? We didn't break any laws nor did we target civilians.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Yeah but see the Hague convention only applies in conflicts between countries that have both signed it. The United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use. Im not sure if the Hague convention even covered that the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." in 1980 did and the US never signed it

The US is a member to many parts of the hague convention and other conventions but not that one, That part does not apply to the US since it did not sign it

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 19-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]


The Hague convention covers any country that has signed it, regardless if their enemy has or not. Fair one about the US not signing it though.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This talk about signing conventions or not is all well and good (in a technical sense) but it seems some get rather picky when they want to sidestep the provisions of law yet demand others treat people humanely and in accordance with the law.

Stating that the USA has not signed the chemical weapons treaty ought to be something of shame and not considered a good excuse to wheel out.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf

The Hague convention covers any country that has signed it, regardless if their enemy has or not. Fair one about the US not signing it though.


Thats just not true many of the Hague Conventions only applies to other "Hague Countries" The Convention only applies between countries that are parties to the Convention.

For example the famous expanding bullet one.



The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

"The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.



Thats very clear Even if you are a member it is not binding when fighting a non member, and infact even goes further




It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, one of the belligerants is joined by a non-contracting Power".


So that convention even goes out the window if a non member joins the conflict between two member states.

www.codoh.com...

patriot.net...

www.ag.gov.au... .nsf/Page/RWPAECAF1C3103656EDCA256E6700164FE6?OpenDocument

[edit on 19-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

It is clearly a revolting and totally indiscriminate weapon which has been used in an area where many civillians were (and that is so for almost every town or city where fighting is going on, many flee but many people always stay......it happens in every war, for many there is absolutely no where else to go).


Strange that we gave them time to evacuate the city before we engaged the enemy to minimize civilian casualties. We must be really evil to do something like let them leave before all hell breaks loose.

The way I see it, white phosphorus is a lot more humane than a decapitation with dull knife in front of a video camera singing Allah hu Akbar while you are gurgling on your own blood.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join