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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Dear RK-Pr0t0c0I… you say civilians would have to be very stupid not to evacuate Falugha on hearing the Americans were coming. Ok but what does that make all those Americans who couldn’t leave New Orleans when they heard a hurricane was coming? I think that must make them really stupid, or (more controversially by your way of thinking) how about people who just couldn’t get out?
Of course Hurricane Katrina hit the richest country on earth; ok it was the “poor” ones who were left behind most, but maybe the challenge of a poor Iraqi trying to leave his city, pales into insignificance against the one of a “poor” American trying to leave there’s?
After all if you’re in America and even if your “poor” there are richer people around you who good-heartedly might choose to you out if your life is in danger. Given that Iraq has suffered years of sanctions and destruction to its economy maybe richer good-hearted people would have been in much shorter supply.
With both Iraqi poverty and the example of New Orleans in mind I think it makes sense to believe news reports that about a third of Falugha civilian population was left behind, when the cities partial liquidation (oppose! meant liberation!!) began.

Furthermore to all those who say “white phosphorus was only used against the Iraqi insurgents” I have a question: “Does the U.S military currently posses smart splashes?” You know, when the white phosphorus burns and the chemical splashes as a result do the splashes have some sort of a homing mechanism?
Hell if only they had used white phosphorus against those extremely stupid people of New Orleans who shot at the rescue workers, would that have been justice? U.S foreign policy style at least? Trouble is the Medicare costs for skin reconstruction would have made it counter productive even against criminals.

Surely the very fact that the U.S military has been lying about its use of white phosphorus for more than a year shows us they know using it as a weapon is barbaric? What amazes me is all those “patriots” who choose to believe its propaganda rather than look at the obvious (obvious because the military itself has just admitted to lying). By so easily building their thoughts on lies surely its these people who make the foundations of every dictatorship possible?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


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.


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]


Strange, that is not what is taught to British soldiers during their Laws of Armed Conflict lectures. These lectures are presented to every serving British soldier on a yearly basis as part of their annual ITD package.

Maybe this is just another example of how the US tend to play by the good-guy rules until it doesn't suit their purposes. Then they get out the law books to weasle their way out of it. They are very quick to call out the dogs when another country breaks the rules.

Shame peoples sense of humanity doesn't listen to lawyers, else the US government wouldn't be hitting the .lines with this story!



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
White phosphorus and red phosphorus were both used in Iraq. Black phosphorus was not.

What are they? The same stuff you probably have in the trunk of the car that your wife and kiddies ride around in - flares.

They are commomly used as an illuminator or smokescreen. White Phosphorus ( Willie Pete or WP ) produces some of the most dense smoke you can make. It makes you invisible and your enemy blind.

It is also used to flush out the enemy from entrenched positions. When WP is cascaded on them, they panic, and tend to run into the sunlight. Bingo, like shooting fish in a barrel.

WP fragments can cause some of the nastiest burns known to man. Basically, it will eat through the flesh and continue sinking the whole way down to the bone. The way to put the fire out is to remove all of the oxygen from the WP burn; deprivation snuffs it out. Saline solutions are used in hospitals, also.

So far I've talked about using WP as a smokescreen. It is assumed that I am using it against enemy combatants, not civilians.

But what if - and this is where the whole brouhaha came about - I started using the WP as a weapon? Firing it at the enemy to burn him? Or, God forbid, a civilian should get hit with WP?

This is what is generally outlawed - using it as a weapon. Did we use it as a weapon? Yes, we did. Did civilian casualties result? Yes, they did. Want to know more? There is a 12 page discussion going on right here at
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read it and enjoy. Remember, things are not always what they ffirst appear to be.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf


Maybe this is just another example of how the US tend to play by the good-guy rules until it doesn't suit their purposes. Then they get out the law books to weasle their way out of it. They are very quick to call out the dogs when another country breaks the rules.

Shame peoples sense of humanity doesn't listen to lawyers, else the US government wouldn't be hitting the .lines with this story!


They dont have to weasle out of anything many of the Conventions are very clear on how and when they imply. When they write something like this in black and white in the convention



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


Its quite clear. If they tell you every convention issue applies all the time to everyone they are either lying or thats some personally policy they have on their own which is not part of the treaty.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Strange that we gave them time to evacuate the city before we engaged the enemy to minimize civilian casualties.


- What's so "strange" about it?
People may prefer to ignore the reality all they like but it is a certainty that no matter what warnings are given civillians will always remain in a city/town about to be attacked.


We must be really evil to do something like let them leave before all hell breaks loose.


- No.
The "evil" part is using indescriminate weapons like WP knowing there are definitely going to be innocent men, women and children remaining in the area.


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.


- Are those really the standards by which you wish to see the USA operate and be judged upon?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

- Are those really the standards by which you wish to see the USA operate and be judged upon?


You know what I’m sick and tired of this. If someone was holding a gun to my face and said they were going to kill me, do you think I would do nothing because of some high moral standard? Hell no, when it come to survival molars and standards go out the window. We’re tying to win a war and you’re talking about standards?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Are those really the standards by which you wish to see the USA operate and be judged upon?

Pretty loaded question and one that stinks of those who wishfully seek to claim that war has morals and standards.

Furthermore, these days, no matter how or what the US does, judgement has already been determined. Kind of reminds me of an alternative history story I read concerning if American colonists had lost the war of independence against the British. General Washington is captured and brought before the British Parliament for trial, where he is asked how he pleads: guilty or not guilty? He basically responds: 'Why do you ask me such a wretched question, for the sentence is already determined and my hanging is assured....'

Thus, your question amounts to semantics, just as the trial of General George Washington would have been if the colonists' would have lost their fight for independence against the British. Yes, sminkeypinkey, those are the standards that the US will be judged by irregardless, because the sentence is already determined in this matter of what really happened in Fallujah, is it not?





seekerof



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
People may prefer to ignore the reality all they like but it is a certainty that no matter what warnings are given civillians will always remain in a city/town about to be attacked.


You and others make it sound like we do nothing but run loose with bloodlust in our eyes killing everyone we see in sight. This is far from the truth and we try to minimize civilian casualties at all times.

If we did as you suggest, the Iraq casualties would be a lot higher, most Iraqi cities would be but a memory, and we would have our troops home by now because there would be no one left to fight.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I agree with you there xman. I dont know why some think that we dont care about civilian casualties. I guess giving them the warning of the attack on Falujia isnt enough for some to make them believe that.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Paddy Info I had no idea that flares where being used to cover people in a chemical which burns them to the bone. I mean that is the point isn’t it? Not that the U.S used white phosphorus flares in Iraq but that they used them as a weapon against the Resistance in a city partially full of civilians.
Dear lundachris: People say the U.S doesn’t care much about civilians because it doesn’t count the ones it kills (well not in Iraq anyway). Some people suspect that as long as there’s no nasty pictures they can do what they like.
Certainly in Falugha they could have done what like, especially as the military (or certainly British) is keeping journalist out on “safety grounds” and the only ones are “embedded journalist” who as we know have a habit of reporting whatever the military wants them to see.
Doesn’t the fact it took so long for media reports about white phosphorus to surface show how bad media coverage in these areas is?
So the military can do what it likes. Also throughout human conflict Troops have had a habit of going “a bit mental” towards civilians when there lives have been threatened by an invisible enemy for days or months on end.

Yes the people of Falugha we warned the Americans were coming, just like the people of New Orleans where warned Katrina “was coming”. Trouble is that after years of sanctions against WMD’s that did exist, Iraq is an impoverished country.
One poorer and even more deprived than New Orleans. Hard to believe but many people don’t even have four wheel drives. Maybe that’s why so many civilians stayed behind.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If someone was holding a gun to my face and said they were going to kill me, do you think I would do nothing because of some high moral standard?


- If you really think that a personal matter of self defence equates to a town with significant numbers of innocents go a. Westy.
Sorry but I disagree.


We’re tying to win a war and you’re talking about standards?


- I'm sure every army that ever was has it's fill of people who think there should be no 'standards' (or to put it another way 'law', hmmm?)


Originally posted by Seekerof
Pretty loaded question and one that stinks of those who wishfully seek to claim that war has morals and standards.


- Sorry you disagree but unfortunately war does have 'morals' and 'standards' (otherwise known as 'law').


Originally posted by x_man_in_blackx
You and others


- If you are going to respond to what I have said how about you deal with just that and forget 'the others', hmmm?
I'll stand over and debate what I've said, not what any or everyone else has to say, 'they' can do that themselves if they want, ok?


make it sound like we do nothing but run loose with bloodlust in our eyes killing everyone we see in sight.


- Er, no I didn't.
I was referring specifically to the use WP in an environment where it is known that there are civilians there.

(Unless you can show different?)


This is far from the truth and we try to minimize civilian casualties at all times.


- My point is that despite this it is still a matter of fact (because it always is) that no matter what warnings are given or attempts to minimise there will always be civilian casualties when you attack a city or large town.


If we did as you suggest, the Iraq casualties would be a lot higher


- Who knows how many Iraqi casualties there have been?
Estimates currently range from 20 - 30 000 to well over 100 000.

Iraq has a population of around 24millions.


we would have our troops home by now because there would be no one left to fight.


- Did I, at any time, say the US forces were attempting to exterminate the Iraqi population?
Interesting that that sprung to your mind though.


Originally posted by ludaChris
I dont know why some think that we dont care about civilian casualties.


- Maybe the correct term should be 'care enough about civilian casualties'?
......and perhaps that has something to do with the large number of civilian casualties?


I guess giving them the warning of the attack on Falujia isnt enough for some to make them believe that.


- Frankly no it isn't.
I have never ever heard of a large city or town being completely emptied and free of civilians in war time pending an attack (no matter what warnings were given).

Those 'warnings' do not IMO excuse the use of some of the most appalling weapons yet devised (so appalling that the US even tried to deny their use in such circumstances) on areas where it is known civilians are.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Sminkey, when insurgents/terrorists(whatever they call them these days) mount attacks in civilian populated areas, what do you think is gonna happen. They are the ones who put the civilians in between them and us, not the other way around. There are things we abide by called the rules of engagement. Something those insurgents dont care too much about it seems.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
lunda Christ: Or do we put the civilians in danger by invading their country and creating the terrorist? Certainly Iraq is a great recruitment poster for any terrorist organisation.
At least under Saddam theses extremist Muslim fundamentalists where kept under control as opposed to being allowed to kill almost anyone at random throughout the country. Then again Rumsfeld did say something about liberation as well as liquidation.

If America invaded England I would become a terrorist and we speak the same language. Ok I wouldn't kidnap and cut peoples . of but its not happening all the time is it? Isn't it only al-Zarqawi group who does things like that?
Certainly many of “terrorists” are simply a resistance who are doing what all resistances do and that is fight the occupying force. And I think killing Americas paid army really does put domestic political pressure on the Bush administration. Anyone disagree with that?

But in return (we the people who apparently invaded Iraq to destroy inhumane weapons) use another weapon (better suited as a flare) and which provides a worse death than cyanide gas, maybe even mustard gas.

Well I guess the “flare” factories might be doing some overtime because with the use of this weapon in the news (and in particular our handling of the story) we may be staying Iraq a little longer, what a recruitment for Osama?
By denying the truth for so long the Pentagram has given the real lies of terrorist extra credibility.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

from sminkeypinkey - Er, no I didn't.
I was referring specifically to the use WP in an environment where it is known that there are civilians there.

Is your issue with the WP itself? Let me ask that another way: what weapons would be acceptable for us to use in Fallujah, if, as you imply, there are bound to be civilians still there?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChrisSminkey, when insurgents/terrorists(whatever they call them these days) mount attacks in civilian populated areas, what do you think is gonna happen.


- I would expect a response that makes a great attempt to avoid the most horrific civilian casualties.

I would not expect the use of such horrors as WP.


They are the ones who put the civilians in between them and us, not the other way around.


- That might apply in respect of an attack by 'them', it should not when it comes to attacks made by 'us'.


There are things we abide by called the rules of engagement. Something those insurgents don't care too much about it seems.


- Well IIRC the usual rules of engagement require 'us' to act in ways that require strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties; I do not call using WP as a weapon such an act.

Personally I think it should be classified as a chemical weapon, it appears it is not but only IMO on the most flimsy technicality.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Is your issue with the WP itself?


- Largely yes, I think WP is a chemical weapon that (like all other chemical weapons) should have no place in the inventory of a civilised nation.


Let me ask that another way: what weapons would be acceptable for us to use in Fallujah, if, as you imply, there are bound to be civilians still there?


- Those that are the least indiscriminate as possible and certainly not things like chemical weapons.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- I would expect a response that makes a great attempt to avoid the most horrific civilian casualties.



sminkey, in this case the battlefields are .ing into cities these days because the enemies we face dont fight in the empty fields where no civilians are in existence. they now . into civilian areas because they know somehow we would avoid the cities and avoid collateral damage. but we cant let them keep the cities under their control and we have to show the enemies that hiding behind civilians aint working. as i recall somebody says that about 80 percent of the population would live in urban areas and most of the fighting would take place there because our enemies dont want to face us in empty field. the enemies chose that type of terrain to fight. not us.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Are you intentionally spelling my handle here as 'Lunda Christ'. Thanks but I prefer not to be called Christ, there was only one of them, and he lived quite a long time ago.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Let me ask that another way: what weapons would be acceptable for us to use in Fallujah, if, as you imply, there are bound to be civilians still there?


from sminkeypinkey Those that are the least indiscriminate as possible and certainly not things like chemical weapons

I'm sure that if we could get the terrorists to agree to having a receptor implanted in their necks, then we could develop a weapon that would seek and destroy only them.

Dead is dead, imo. Doesn't matter if WP or gut shot, unless you're afraid of pain and that last few moments of lucidity.

This really comes down to civilians staying around in the combat area, doesn't it? We cannot control them other than to warn them. Regardless of how many pictures you paint of old, sick, infirm, doesn't own a 4WD, it is their responsiblity to evacuate. We cannot be held responsible if they choose to stay after fair warning. So please don't trot out the bloody photos or tales of suffering after the battle.

Attitudes such as that - and I'm not singling you out, sminkeypinkey, are why we cannot win over there. We're handicapped like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Dead is dead, imo. Doesn't matter if WP or gut shot, unless you're afraid of pain and that last few moments of lucidity.


- Well clearly that is not true, otherwise we would not have international agreements and 'banned' catagories of weapons.

What next? Mustard gas?


This really comes down to civilians staying around in the combat area, doesn't it?


- Um, well there are other issues like that being ther home where they have a right to live, 'us' as outsiders invading a relatively stable country, making matters many times worse and getting sucked into a quagmire where the 'ante' keeps getting upped and there is no credible end in sight to the whole horror.


We cannot be held responsible if they choose to stay after fair warning. So please don't trot out the bloody photos or tales of suffering after the battle.


- Sorry but I just don't buy the 'we had to kill them, they wouldn't get out of the way' arguement.

Every war criminal there ever was probably said much the same kind of thing.


Attitudes such as that - and I'm not singling you out, sminkeypinkey, are why we cannot win over there.


- It's not a matter of 'attitude' (especially from someone thousands of miles away shooting the breeze about it); it's everything to do with doing the wrong thing and that in itself generating more of the very thing you are trying to defeat out there.
Counter-productive is the term.


We're handicapped like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.


- How?

If 'you' have been reduced to actually using chemical weapons to try and win how is this in any way being "handicapped"?

It seems to me that if the use of stuff like WP (the weapon, not flare) is considered acceptable now then far from being 'handicapped' the facts are that almost all limits are 'off' and restraint ignored.

(although the whole issue of the original denial of it's use is probably as good an illustration as any that the US military themselves were well aware of just how appalled the international community would be over this.)

Frankly I have heard this kind of thing for decades.
In Northern Ireland we too were once 'treated' to those who claimed 'we know who they all are'; 'we're being hamstrung from getting them by the law/clever lawyers/sympathisers'; if we were just 'allowed' to go in and do the job without all those legal regulations' etc etc.

IMO it's a deluded lie to excuse the fundamental basic problem.

Namely that this kind of 'war' will not resolve this kind of political problem.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There's only one point I want to address right now (supper's calling):

Um, well there are other issues like that being ther home where they have a right to live, 'us' as outsiders invading a relatively stable country, making matters many times worse and getting sucked into a quagmire where the 'ante' keeps getting upped and there is no credible end in sight to the whole horror.


Then as long as there are civilians in the area, we must exercise utmost caution. What do we do when they open their doors for the insurgency to come in and fire at us from their homes? Are we supposed to sit back and take it?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join