Pentagon used white phosphorous in Iraq

[Clarence]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/...te_phosphorous

Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians. Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. "It was not used against civilians," Venable said. The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "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)" munitions. "We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions." The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations. Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.

that's an AP article. first they said no they didn't, now that they're caught red handed... I can guess some of the arguements.
1.) there were no civilians there.
2.) they were used for light not as a weapon
3.) who cares, they're terrorists

I'm probably missing some.
here's some educational material

[shield772]

Quote by: Clarence http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/...te_phosphorous that's an AP article. first they said no they didn't, now that they're caught red handed... I can guess some of the arguements. 1.) there were no civilians there. 2.) they were used for light not as a weapon 3.) who cares, they're terrorists I'm probably missing some. here's some educational material

Is there a International Law forbidding it's use?

[Matt W]

It's a chemical weapon, but I understand the grey legal area here is whether it was used against civilians or not. The embarressing thing is that the Pentagon has been caught out lying...

[shield772]

Quote by: Matt W It's a chemical weapon, but I understand the grey legal area here is whether it was used against civilians or not. The embarressing thing is that the Pentagon has been caught out lying...

I am troubled by the label lying, possibly the person or persons issuing the statement that it wasn't being used was mistaken or asked the wrong question, could it simply have been in such a large organization as the US Military a mistake.

[Matt W]

True, but with several news organisations showing white phospherous smokescreens in Fallalujah (sp?) and so forth, issuing a blanket denial is criminally stupid. Lying it may not have been, but the other option is incompetance. Sad, isn't it?

[RickSp]

The protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations.

A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.

Britain dragged into white phosphorus row

It would appear, that as with the torture of prisoners, US Army standards have changed.

[shield772]

Quote by: Matt W True, but with several news organisations showing white phospherous smokescreens in Fallalujah (sp?) and so forth, issuing a blanket denial is criminally stupid. Lying it may not have been, but the other option is incompetance. Sad, isn't it?

"After an embarrassing denial yesterday by the new US Ambassador to Britain, Robert Tuttle, that white phosphorus had been used in Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed its use but said that it was not a banned weapon."

So the Pentagon didn't deny, an out of the loop Ambassador did.

[Matt W]

Ah, that I didn't know. That Ambassador should get a slap.

[shield772]

So is it a banned weapon?

[Matt W]

Hang on shield - more detailed discussion here:-

Is it really wrong to use chemical weapons?

[shield772]

"White phosphorus is a conventional weapon. It is not a chemical weapon," said the spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable. "They are not outlawed or illegal.

"We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target-making in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

Protocol III of the UN's 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons expressly forbids the use of white phosphorus against civilian targets or military targets in civilian areas. The United States has not signed up to that protocol, although Britain has.

But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being used mostly for its toxicity.

[Matt W]

Yeah, and then the artillery guys talk about firing it at enemy positions....

Now, I can't honestly remember where I read it, but it was today, and it was either a UK national paper or on the web.....but I seem to recall something about a case of white phospherous burning had gone to court at some point (due to the whole chemical weapons issue), but had been rejected because the burns were thermal as opposed to chemical. I'll try and find it, but this sounds like something that could be argued in circles by lawyers, doctors & scientists....

Either way, this is not a weapon that should be used in areas where civilians are likely to be present.

[shield772]

Quote by: Matt W Yeah, and then the artillery guys talk about firing it at enemy positions.... Now, I can't honestly remember where I read it, but it was today, and it was either a UK national paper or on the web.....but I seem to recall something about a case of white phospherous burning had gone to court at some point (due to the whole chemical weapons issue), but had been rejected because the burns were thermal as opposed to chemical. I'll try and find it, but this sounds like something that could be argued in circles by lawyers, doctors & scientists.... Either way, this is not a weapon that should be used in areas where civilians are likely to be present.

If an International Law Agreement or Treaty we have signed says no then it's no.

[Clarence]

White Phosphorous burns flesh to the bone. What a terrible thing. No wonder those people in Iraq think we're the bad guys. The point is...

The Pentagon lied!

[Krazyjuice]

This thing reminds me of the infamous napalm photograph taken in vietnam.

http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs...nam_napalm.htm

[shield772]

Quote by: Clarence White Phosphorous burns flesh to the bone. What a terrible thing. No wonder those people in Iraq think we're the bad guys. The point is... The Pentagon lied!

No the pentagon didn't, look back at the previous posts.

[RickSp]

Quote by: shield772 No the pentagon didn't, look back at the previous posts.

Oh please. OK, the US government lied. Yes, the early denials that WP was ever used as a weapon came from a US ambassador and not directly from the Pentagon. On the other hand the Pentagon admits to using WP as a weapon but denies using it on civilians. Reporters on the ground have filmed civilians who were burned to death by WP, so there again the Pentagon is lying.

[Walmas]

irony. We invade a contry for not following the Genva conventions. turns out that we broke the conventions.

[Krazyjuice]

We broke many conventions at that...

[joeyeban1]

how could the ambassador lie on such a very delicate matter ? this kind of raises questions on whether or not they ever took ethical lesson while at the univresity?