US confirms, used incendiary bombs in Fallujah

[GostHacked]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

Yes that is right, the US Pentagon confirms it has used white phosphorous during the assault on Fallujah. If used on structures/equipment it is considered incendiary. But when used on people, chemical weapon. It is used as an incendiary, it was just so unfortunate that there were people present at those locations.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

I was not targeting the people, I was targeting the equi..... um ok I was targetting the people.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".

I have seen this before. Poor information. Lies. Bad intelligence. Anything else? OH YES, along with the string of lies this past couple weeks: CIA secret detention centers in Europe, and secret CIA flights around the globe. More Iraq prisoner abuse scandals. Who are the terrorists again?

Lies, upon lies burried in a steaming pile of poo. Anything else to declare?

[Shakeyhands]

speaking of losing moral authority.... It amazes me that the likes of Frist are more concerned with the fact something like torture and secret prisons is leaked as opposed to dealing with the torture and secret prisons.. God help the US now...

[crazymf]

It's a fricking war. Give it a rest and quit whining.

If they killed more of those pricks maybe they'd get to come home sooner.

To me they should have dropped a small nuke on the place and wiped it off the map. By all accounts most of the civilians were evacusted anyway.

[Black Dog]

It's a fricking war. Give it a rest and quit whining.

If they killed more of those pricks maybe they'd get to come home sooner.

To me they should have dropped a small nuke on the place and wiped it off the map. By all accounts most of the civilians were evacusted anyway.

By

Although many of Falluja's 200,000 to 300,000 residents fled the city before the assault, between 30,000 and 50,000 are believed to have remained during the fighting.

all

The U.S. military estimates that 200,000 persons fled Fallujah prior to the early November assault, leaving about 30,000-50,000 residents behind.  Those unfortunate civilians who were unable to flee the conflict have inevitably been trapped amid the bombings, artillery, and small arms and light weapons fire between insurgents and U.S. and allied forces.

accounts?

About 300,000 people, the vast majority Sunni Muslims, lived in Fallujah before US forces started bombing the city a few weeks ago in preparations for an offensive launched on Monday to retake the city from insurgents.

An estimated 60,000 civilians remained in the city, which has been bombed heavily by US planes and artillery.

I'll remember this next time someone says some bullshit about U.S. forces taking great pains to avoid killing innocents. (warning: graphic link)

[Shakeyhands]

No need to have to remember BD, I am sure that if things change we'll be right there beside them.

[crazymf]

For once I agree with you BD. The USA shouldn't say that. They should tell the truth, and the truth is that war is hell.

Most of us that support the war effort will also understand the fact that people get killed in less than honorable ways and that a military operation is a blunt tool, not a sharp surgical instrument.

Ultimately, a military is a killing organization and to get particular about how they do it is merely whining.

What seems to be forgotten here is why aren't the same whiners holding the civilian population of Iraq accountable for their neighbors and brothers who are causing all the trouble in the first place?

[Black Dog]

What seems to be forgotten here is why aren't the same whiners holding the civilian population of Iraq accountable for their neighbors and brothers who are causing all the trouble in the first place?

So, let me get this straight: a foreign country invades and occupies your home, which (quite predictably) causes a portion of the population to rise up against the invaders. Suddenly you're responsible for the actions of those people?

There's a term for punishing people for the actions of others. It's called "collective punishment". The Nazis were pretty big on that.

[crazymf]

*deleted*

[BHS]

I'll remember this next time someone says some bullshit about U.S. forces taking great pains to avoid killing innocents. (warning: graphic link)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US military DOES take pains to avoid killing civilians. The bullshit comes from people who take the opportunity to present every civilian death, however it occurred, as "proof" that the US military is indiscriminately and wantonly killing civilians. The same people who insist that every weapon involving a chemical reaction is suddenly a "chemical weapon". The same people who consider foreign born terrorists hiding among former Ba'athists to be representative of a majority of a population that clearly despises them.

It is NOT the same thing to incidentally kill civilians who were given a chance to evacuate but did not, and to intentionally choose to launch a suicide attack against a target surrounded by children. People who consider the two to be morally equivalent are as repugnantly barbaric as the terrorists who perpetrate said suicide attacks.

[Black Dog]

The US military DOES take pains to avoid killing civilians. The bullshit comes from people who take the opportunity to present every civilian death, however it occurred, as "proof" that the US military is indiscriminately and wantonly killing civilians. The same people who insist that every weapon involving a chemical reaction is suddenly a "chemical weapon". The same people who consider foreign born terrorists hiding among former Ba'athists to be representative of a majority of a population that clearly despises them.

Lobbing mortar rounds designed to sear the flesh from people's bones into a heavily populated area is about as indiscriminate as it gets.

Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.

Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.

Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.

It is NOT the same thing to incidentally kill civilians who were given a chance to evacuate but did not, and to intentionally choose to launch a suicide attack against a target surrounded by children. People who consider the two to be morally equivalent are as repugnantly barbaric as the terrorists who perpetrate said suicide attacks.

Strawmen and victim-blaming aside, how does the morally repugnant act of suicide bombing relate to the morally repugnant act of killing civilians? Argus would say the difference is one of intent. That may be, but the intent here was pretty clear: to kill anything still in the city, insurgent or otherwise.

[moderateamericain]

The US military DOES take pains to avoid killing civilians. The bullshit comes from people who take the opportunity to present every civilian death, however it occurred, as "proof" that the US military is indiscriminately and wantonly killing civilians. The same people who insist that every weapon involving a chemical reaction is suddenly a "chemical weapon". The same people who consider foreign born terrorists hiding among former Ba'athists to be representative of a majority of a population that clearly despises them.

Lobbing mortar rounds designed to sear the flesh from people's bones into a heavily populated area is about as indiscriminate as it gets.

Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.

Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.

Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.

It is NOT the same thing to incidentally kill civilians who were given a chance to evacuate but did not, and to intentionally choose to launch a suicide attack against a target surrounded by children. People who consider the two to be morally equivalent are as repugnantly barbaric as the terrorists who perpetrate said suicide attacks.

Strawmen and victim-blaming aside, how does the morally repugnant act of suicide bombing relate to the morally repugnant act of killing civilians? Argus would say the difference is one of intent. That may be, but the intent here was pretty clear: to kill anything still in the city, insurgent or otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

have you ever seen white phosophorus before? Or more to the point of what it is, or what it can do?

[BHS]

Black Dog:

You're being disengenous. White phosphorous is used in "shake and bake" operations to incinerate specific targets in enclosed areas (like tanks). But that's not what you're describing. The intent of lobbing white phosphorous shells into the general vicinity of a combat zone is not to incinerate everybody in that zone, but to flush those hiding in that zone out into the open. The smoke produced from white phosphorous reacts chemically with water in the skin, lungs and eyes of those exposed to produce acid, which causes irritation but does not kill. (Note that there appears to be two different definitions for "smoke" on the web when discussing WP. The actual burning white phosphorous itself is deadly and visibly resembles smoke. The chemical after-product of the burning of white phosphorous, in other words the actual "smoke", creates the chemical irritant described above and is not deadly.)

Most disengenuously of all, however, is your failure to acknowledge that the reason white phosphorous shells were selected to begin with was to limit civilian casualties. The US Armed Forces have far more effective methods of wiping out enemy forces hiding in urban cover, but chose WP in an effort to flush out enemy fighters rather than killing indiscriminately.

The reason for your disengenuousness is clear: you seek to discredit American efforts by any means possible. The second paragraph of my post above was not so much a straw man as a means of relating this thread back to previous posts you've made, and your previous efforts to undermine the American effort to improve the lives of millions of Iraqis by morally equating the activities and ethos of the US Armed forces with the actions and complete lack of ethics of the terrorists they seek to eliminate. My aim was to put your deliberate misuse of information about WP's use into the broader context of your anti-American (anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic) worldview, so that other readers can see where your argument is coming from.

[Black Dog]

have you ever seen white phosophorus before? Or more to the point of what it is,  or what it can do?

These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.

Also discovered this: "the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III." (wikipedia)

[moderateamericain]

ahh i apologize BD that was meant for the person you were responding 2, not you, my quoting system is troubled to say the least. I sometimes end up quoting things from entirely different threads! I assumed that you had already done your homework on the effects of it. It was more for those defending its use.

[Shakeyhands]

The US military DOES take pains to avoid killing civilians. The bullshit comes from people who take the opportunity to present every civilian death, however it occurred, as "proof" that the US military is indiscriminately and wantonly killing civilians. The same people who insist that every weapon involving a chemical reaction is suddenly a "chemical weapon". The same people who consider foreign born terrorists hiding among former Ba'athists to be representative of a majority of a population that clearly despises them.

Lobbing mortar rounds designed to sear the flesh from people's bones into a heavily populated area is about as indiscriminate as it gets.

Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.

Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.

Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.

It is NOT the same thing to incidentally kill civilians who were given a chance to evacuate but did not, and to intentionally choose to launch a suicide attack against a target surrounded by children. People who consider the two to be morally equivalent are as repugnantly barbaric as the terrorists who perpetrate said suicide attacks.

Strawmen and victim-blaming aside, how does the morally repugnant act of suicide bombing relate to the morally repugnant act of killing civilians? Argus would say the difference is one of intent. That may be, but the intent here was pretty clear: to kill anything still in the city, insurgent or otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

have you ever seen white phosophorus before? Or more to the point of what it is, or what it can do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html

HIGHLIGHTS: White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death. White phosphorus has been found in at least 77 of the 1,416 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**EDIT - sorry, posted before your response to BD. Informative none the less.

[Army Guy]

BHS:

You're being disengenous. White phosphorous is used in "shake and bake" operations to incinerate specific targets in enclosed areas (like tanks). But that's not what you're describing. The intent of lobbing white phosphorous shells into the general vicinity of a combat zone is not to incinerate everybody in that zone,

Your incorrect BHS, your using some US grunts interputaion of the WPN, WP comes in all shapes and sizes including grenade size. It's primary job is to create smoke, one of its side effects is it also starts fires. The term shake and bake refs to a dumb bomb of Napalm and HE. WP will not destroy a tank in itself but blind them and prevents them using a laser targeting system.

WP wpns are used in alot of different ways one is to provide a thick smoke as cover, blinding the enemy which allows the user to advance or move unseen. other smoke devices do not burn or produce as much smoke as WP does, It also produces a thicker smoke which as BHS has stated causes other problems such as breathing, extreme tearing, etc etc. forcing the bad guys to either pull back, or take protective measures as putting on gas masks.

Black dog:

Also discovered this: "the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III." (wikipedia)

WP is not an incendiary device, it may have some incendiary qualities when used in areas that have flammable material, but then again any HE will start fires.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

I'll remember this next time someone says some bullshit about U.S. forces taking great pains to avoid killing innocents. (warning: graphic link)

Uruknet.info - a pro-Saddam Hussein website. Just confirms where the far-left's sympathies lie...

[Montgomery Burns]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

Yes that is right, the US Pentagon confirms it has used white phosphorous during the assault on Fallujah. If used on structures/equipment it is considered incendiary. But when used on people, chemical weapon.  It is used as an incendiary, it was just so unfortunate that there were people present at those locations.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

I was not targeting the people, I was targeting the equi..... um ok I was targetting the people.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".

I have seen this before. Poor information. Lies. Bad intelligence. Anything else? OH YES, along with the string of lies this past couple weeks: CIA secret detention centers in Europe, and secret CIA flights around the globe. More Iraq prisoner abuse scandals. Who are the terrorists again?

Lies, upon lies burried in a steaming pile of poo. Anything else to declare?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you could only direct one-tenth of your Rage Against America towards the head-chopping Jihadists...

"Who are the terrorists again?"

There are Canadians fighting American terrorists in Iraq right now. I'm sure these Canadians could use some extra help.

[Black Dog]

The term shake and bake refs to a dumb bomb of Napalm and HE. WP will not destroy a tank in itself but blind them and prevents them using a laser targeting system.

If you read a few of the articles on the subject (even ones going back to the time of the attack on Fallujah), you'll see American commanders using the term "shake and bake" to describe using WP to flush out insurgents, who would then be targeted by HE munitions.

Uruknet.info - a pro-Saddam Hussein website. Just confirms where the far-left's sympathies lie...

The article was reproduced from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, you tool.

Don't you have some phony interviews to disseminate somewhere else?

[GostHacked]

If you could only direct one-tenth of your Rage Against America towards the head-chopping Jihadists...

"Who are the terrorists again?"

There are Canadians fighting American terrorists in Iraq right now. I'm sure these Canadians could use some extra help. dry.gif

You are getting off topic Burnsie.

Burns, there are immigrant Canadians fighitng in Iraq, there are all sorts of foreigners in Iraq, hell even Americans are fighting them as well. Do not try to single the Canadians out.

Pull the wool pack up off your head. They have blinded you for so long. You have been lied to, cheated, and disrepected. They used you and your like to gain support for an illegal war. How many more lies will it take for you Burns before you say enough is enough, how much bullshit can you stand to have shoveled in your face.

I am far from a raging lunatic. The pot keeps me nice and calm.

The whole thing I am getting at is the 'language' and how it can be changed to fit whatever needs/wants they have. It's a chemical weapon plain and simple. But since you are just firing it on hardware, you don't have to take responsibility for human deaths in any shape or form.

It is all about classification of the weapon that needs to be revised.

[BHS]

If you could only direct one-tenth of your Rage Against America towards the head-chopping Jihadists...

"Who are the terrorists again?"

There are Canadians fighting American terrorists in Iraq right now. I'm sure these Canadians could use some extra help. dry.gif

You are getting off topic Burnsie.

Burns, there are immigrant Canadians fighitng in Iraq, there are all sorts of foreigners in Iraq, hell even Americans are fighting them as well. Do not try to single the Canadians out.

Pull the wool pack up off your head. They have blinded you for so long. You have been lied to, cheated, and disrepected. They used you and your like to gain support for an illegal war. How many more lies will it take for you Burns before you say enough is enough, how much bullshit can you stand to have shoveled in your face.

I am far from a raging lunatic. The pot keeps me nice and calm.

The whole thing I am getting at is the 'language' and how it can be changed to fit whatever needs/wants they have. It's a chemical weapon plain and simple. But since you are just firing it on hardware, you don't have to take responsibility for human deaths in any shape or form.

It is all about classification of the weapon that needs to be revised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a chemical weapon, unless you define any weapon involving a chemical reaction to be a chemical weapon, in which case every munition with an explosive charge in the shell is also a chemical weapon. Hell, if you really want to get technical about it, every weapon, including Al Capone's baseball bat, is made of chemical compounds. If you poked someone in the eye with a burning spliff that'd be a chemical weapon too. Ban 'em all!

The war isn't illegal. No court in the world has been convened to make that decision, nor has any court ruled that way about any war that I can think of. I guess the left's concern for due process and the presumption of innocence only extends to dictators and terrorists.

I can't speak for Burns, but the only disrespect and bullshit I've had to experience in regards to the debate about the war comes from the left, where a loud declaration of having higher moral standards is frequently a self-deluding mask for the basest partisan motivations.

[Black Dog]

I can't speak for Burns, but the only disrespect and bullshit I've had to experience in regards to the debate about the war comes from the left, where a loud declaration of having higher moral standards is frequently a self-deluding mask for the basest partisan motivations.

I'm a Canadian with no vested partisan interest in the political dimension of the antiwar movement (I don't like the Democrats): what's my "base partisan motivation"?

[GostHacked]

I can't speak for Burns, but the only disrespect and bullshit I've had to experience in regards to the debate about the war comes from the left, where a loud declaration of having higher moral standards is frequently a self-deluding mask for the basest partisan motivations.

Alright, you are right, war is not illegal. I guess. So I guess that makes it alright to do anything. War is hell, and the will always be colateral. But the U.S. is always boasting a moral standard that the rest of the globe should follow. That in there itself is a mask.

There is still a shitload more of what we do not know of. What other weapons, they first deny of using. Then after some evidence comes out they finnaly DO admit to using those weapons. They if they will admit to that, when the evidence is found that they used other questionable munittions, what then?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

The war isn't illegal. No court in the world has been convened to make that decision, nor has any court ruled that way about any war that I can think of

The US invasion of Panama was deemed 'illegal'.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r240.htm

Expressing its profound concern at the serious consequences the armed

intervention by the United States of America in Panama might have for peace

and security in the Central American region,

     1.   Strongly deplores the intervention in Panama by the armed forces of

the United States of America, which constitutes a flagrant violation of

international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial

integrity of States;

     2.   Demands the immediate cessation of the intervention and the

withdrawal from Panama of the armed invasion forces of the United States;

Interestingly, while claims of 'left wing bias in the media' are rampant, only one major US news station reported the fact that the UN condemned their invasion of Panama, in a 7 second 'btw' soundbyte'. The rest did not utter a single word. An interesting documentary on the issue (that won an academy award) was called "The Panama Deception".

Further, when pressed on the issue, Kofi Annan said that the US invasion of Iraq was 'illegal'. When one nation violates the borders (by invasion of another), they must either have declared war, or had a UN approved mandate to do so. The US did neither, technically.

However, no 'court' of any country has the power to declare the actions of others 'illegal'. That is why the UN Security Council, and other organizations like NAFTA and GATT tribunals exist.

[Army Guy]

This is a case of how things get blown out of proportion, some polictical wienie answered a question that should have been directed to his military Aid to answer.

and now they are back pedling and the media is making a big deal on how horriable a wpn WP is.

Before we start throwing rocks at the white house and pionting our fingers again we should check into who else uses WP munitions.

Almost every country in the world uses WP muntions including Canada.

WP comes in every size from grenade size to hvy arty rounds, it's primary purpose is to produce smoke, a heavy thick smoke that blinds the enemy personal and equipment. Allowing the user to advance on the postion unseen.

It's not a chemical wpn, or incindary wpn, but classified as a smoke wpn.

There is no world march to ban them as we tried to ban land mines. it is just a plain wpn of war designed for war.