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 uses white phosphporous weapons in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
White Phosphorous: The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal



December 27, 2005

The U.S. military used white phosphorous as a weapon in Fallujah, and the U.S. military says such use is illegal. That's one heck of a fog fact (Larry Beinhart's term for a fact that is neither secret nor known). This fact has appeared in an article in the Guardian (UK) and been circulated on the internet, but has just not interested the corporate media in the United States.

It interests Congressman John Conyers, however. Last week, Conyers released a 273-page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War." This 273-page report covers many war-related crimes, including the use of white phosphorous.

On page 165, following discussion of other crimes against humanity, the report states: "Finally, there is evidence that the U.S. Military used an incendiary weapon in combat known as White Phosphorus, even though the U.S. Battle Book states, it is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets,' and which would be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act."



Another proud moment brought to you by the Bush Adminsitration!

source: www.uruknet.info...

White phosphorus melts the flesh right off the bone. After a bomb lands and explodes it kills everyone in a 150 yard radius....or should I say kills them by burning the flesh off of them. This is not a weapon a proud nation uses. This sounds like a weapon a nation of cowards should be using.

Mod Edit: Fixed BB Code.

[edit on 1/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Cowards? Let me tell u what "cowardly" is. It is driving a plane with innocent people into a building with THOUSANDS of innocent people and killing women and children... THAT sir, is what cowardly is.

In times of war against this kind of enemy, I dont really care what the type of weaponry used to kill these ruthless bastards are.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   


In times of war against this kind of enemy, I dont really care what the type of weaponry used to kill these ruthless bastards are.


Is there more than one kind of enemy? So, you have no problem with innocent children and civilians having their flesh burned from their bones with white phosphorus? This weapon, even if used strictly on military personel is against the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act! By doing something like this, what makes us any better than them? What makes us any better than the scum that crashed those planes into the World Trade Center?

We should be setting an example, not trying to see who can be found guilty of the most and worst war crimes!



It is driving a plane with innocent people into a building with THOUSANDS of innocent people and killing women and children... THAT sir, is what cowardly is.


How is burning the flesh off of innocent men, women and children any better? or different?

[edit on 1-1-2006 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I can see we're taking a trip down memory lane.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nothing like being on the cutting edge of a discussion.


Perhaps you were chronologically blinded by your zeal?

Dismissed.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Cowards? Let me tell u what "cowardly" is. It is driving a plane with innocent people into a building with THOUSANDS of innocent people and killing women and children... THAT sir, is what cowardly is.

In times of war against this kind of enemy, I dont really care what the type of weaponry used to kill these ruthless bastards are.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by k4rupt]


I cannot see why you could think a innocent child should deserve to die just because they live in a place like Iraq... With Americans saying things like this all around the world its no wonder there are scores of people lining up to blowthemselves apart attacking you. The only reason you think 9/11 is so bad is because America hides its own war crimes. There is no difference in bombing a area containing a couple of enemies and dozens of civilians, and driving a plane into the WTC.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Cowards? Let me tell u what "cowardly" is. It is driving a plane with innocent people into a building with THOUSANDS of innocent people and killing women and children... THAT sir, is what cowardly is.

In times of war against this kind of enemy, I dont really care what the type of weaponry used to kill these ruthless bastards are.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by k4rupt]


you referring to 9/11? Loose Change?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I like when people say "there is evidence that ______"... it makes it sound like someone video taped a white phosphorus bomb exploding in an orphanage. If the US Military says that the use of WP is illegal, then they wouldn't do it. I know of no military on earth that follows a stricter set of rules of engagement, or follows their rules more closely.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
This has been debunked so many times since it first came up many months ago.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   


If the US Military says that the use of WP is illegal, then they wouldn't do it. I know of no military on earth that follows a stricter set of rules of engagement, or follows their rules more closely.


So our military never tortured any prisoners either then? I mean, since we have such a strict code that we ALWAYS adhere to. You just debunked yourself.



This has been debunked so many times since it first came up many months ago.


Care to elaborate?



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Care to elaborate?


ATS has a search engine, use it, type White Phosphorous and Italian Program, I suggest before you post something again search to make sure it hasn't already come up.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   


This has been debunked so many times since it first came up many months ago.


Debunked?

The US admitted using white phosphorous against isurgents in Iraq.

I wouldn't call that "debunked".

Claims that it is a "WMD" or that it was targeted speciofically against civilians may have been debunked, but the fact that it is being used is not in doubt.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   


Debunked?

The US admitted using white phosphorous against isurgents in Iraq.

I wouldn't call that "debunked".

Claims that it is a "WMD" or that it was targeted speciofically against civilians may have been debunked, but the fact that it is being used is not in doubt.


Thank you! There is no doubt!



ATS has a search engine, use it, type White Phosphorous and Italian Program, I suggest before you post something again search to make sure it hasn't already come up.


Thanks for the advice sport!



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Care to elaborate?


No need to elaborate on it at all.
The fact is it is legal to use, so live with it. The US did nothing against the law.

Zaphod58 explained it very well in another thread.


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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Now lets make this a very big yawn since I agree with Major Discrepancy that this is rehashing old news




[edit on 1/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   


No need to elaborate on it at all.
The fact is it is legal to use, so live with it. The US did nothing against the law.


Wrong....to quote myself: "This weapon, even if used strictly on military personel is against the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act!"



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.


Where does this information come from, the military?


And, BTW...it IS being used on civilians. Denial is a wonderful thing....



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Wrong....to quote myself: "This weapon, even if used strictly on military personel is against the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act!"



Well you do not count since you are not an expert on the subject.



Where does this information come from, the military?


Yes it did come from military sources...


And, BTW...it IS being used on civilians. Denial is a wonderful thing....



Really it is being used on civilians????? Lets see your proof and kindly note you used present tense not past tense so show me where it is currently being used............ :shk:



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
From NON-MILITARY sources.


Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.

Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...


White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets.

The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP 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. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.

www.globalsecurity.org...
make sure to read the "health effects" at the bottom of that page. Also note that it is NOT BANNED by any treaty the US is a signatory of. Now unless we've withdrawn from the Geneva Convention, or the Hauge treaties, WP is NOT a banned or "illegal" weapon.

White Phosphorus was used as a PSYCHOLOGICAL weapon in Fallujah. They dropped it near where the people that were shooting at them were, chased them out of hiding, and then killed them with either guns, or by droppng bombs on them.


[edit on 1/8/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Use of white phosphorus against military targets is not specifically banned by any treaty. Furthermore, White Phosphorous is not categorized as a chemical weapon in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Both of those statements are fact, so please, show us which treaty bans WP?

The only law which may prohibit WP from being used (in any situation) is probably the Convention on Conventional Weapons (Phase III), which is not signed by the United States so we do not have to follow it.


[edit on 8-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Use of white phosphorus against military targets is not specifically banned by any treaty. Furthermore, White Phosphorous is not categorized as a chemical weapon in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Both of those statements are fact, so please, show us which treaty bans WP?

[edit on 8-1-2006 by WestPoint23]


Yes as I understand it there is a treaty that bans it however the US did not sign that treaty so is not bound by it. Therefore when Excitable_Boy said the following



"This weapon, even if used strictly on military personel is against the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act!"


clearly shows he did not know what he was talking about.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Well, he contradicts himself, his own source states that WP is an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon. And like I mentioned before the treaty witch bans most incendiary weapons is not signed by the United States. His argument has no ground to stand on.

Actual quote form Exited_Boy source.


...that the U.S. Military used an incendiary weapon in combat known as White Phosphorus


[edit on 8-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, he contradicts himself, his own source states that WP is an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon. And like I mentioned before the treaty witch bans most incendiary weapons is not signed by the United States. His argument has no ground to stand on.


I understand what you are saying and yes I agree with you totally. Also the source he used is one known to support insurgents and in error in more ways then one by spreading false information



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join