NEWS: US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq

Originally posted by Nerdling
I'm not saying love each other. Just be civil.

Well, considering that you yelled at me in caps to 'get outta'
here twice' ... I suppose I could forgive you IF you were to
smilie click me some virtual roses along with an apology.

clicksmilies.com...

[edit on 11/16/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Everyone knows that America doesn't have to play by the same
rules as the rest of the world. It's not a crime against humanity
if we do it ...

Funny guy. The weapon in use is LEGAL. However, the actions
of the insurgents - such as beheading relief aid workers - is
completely against the 'rules' that the civilized world has
agreed to.

This weapon isn't a 'crime' against anyone.

[edit on 11/16/2005 by FlyersFan]

Twenty ATS dollars to the first person who can tell me why this isn't classed as a chemical weapon.

Come on guys! Make me proud.

Because it was the U.S. that used it.

Give me my $20, because that's the only line of poo-poo that's going to work here.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Excerpt

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.

To understand why this is not considered a chemical weapon, we all will
have to check with the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention.
Gotta' start googling ....

If you are looking for a conspiracy (which is what this site is all about),
perhaps you can look into which countries wrote that document and
which ones signed up for it, etc.

I have to go pick up my daughter at school. So I'm 'outta here'
as you previously wished me to be. Have fun looking. Gotta' go.
Bu-bye.

[edit on 11/16/2005 by FlyersFan]

Thanks FF! More great pics to show how horrific this weapon is...





Yep...that's what we need to be raining down on defenseless babies while we stand at our peak of higher moral fortitude.

wtf-ever

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Hmmm.... the US knew there were civilians there, and the US knew that those civilians would get in the way.... so now, again, im sorry whats the difference between targeting civilians and them getting in the way?

You're completely irrational, so this is my last response to you. I don't know all the details of the Fallujah operation, but it seems clear that the enemy used civilians as shields against the attack. That, in itself, is against the rules of warfare. Also, the attack on Fallujah was one of the most wide publicized operations in the history of warfare. Civilians were given ample time to flee. And one more thing. You are completely ignoring the wholesale massacre of civilians in Fallujah carried out by the enemy, so if you were a rational person you would be raising hell about that instead of carrying on about a non-issue such as white phosphorus.

Yes of course you must be right again...Im irrational because I care about my fellow man...perhaps you can school me in the art of being rational and how to not care?
To you, perhaps, its a non issue...to me, its a very very big issue that knowingly we caused civilian casualties, not INCIDENTAL civilian casualties, but intentional. Yes, that to me is a HUGE issue, and me and my irrational caring for another human being will absolutely sleep well at night.

And effect on humans.

*** Warning - Graphic Image ***

Link To Graphic Image

Link to Graphic Image #2

Link to Graphic Image #3



[edit on 16-11-2005 by Nerdling]

It's legitimate application is for the illumination of a battlefield. It's a support device. Kinda like Agent Orange was a support device to enable instant deforestation.

And...

BBC News
- Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
- Protocol III not signed by US

- Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
- Protocol III not signed by US

How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!!

Peace

Reading the "Vietnam War" references remind me of a commonly known fact: The victors write the history. Know what the victors call "The Vietnam War?" They call it: "The War of American Aggression".

My point being, this may be an issue that won't be decided until the "victors" win, and decide what exactly white phosphorous is.

This weapon is used by other militaries for the same purpose. It's banned when being used on civilian targets when all means of getting them out of the area hasn't been taken. America clearly took all precautions in Fallujah.

The thing, even if used to kill, simply burns people. It's no different than any other explosive.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This weapon is used by other militaries for the same purpose. It's banned when being used on civilian targets when all means of getting them out of the area hasn't been taken. America clearly took all precautions in Fallujah.

The thing, even if used to kill, simply burns people. It's no different than any other explosive.

Was that a hee-haw I heard?

No it's not the same as any other explosive.

And there was no need to use it on a civilian population center...period. I think some one else put it real well. When all the braying dies down the root cause of the bad decision on this lies with the fact U.S. military was battling in the city of a country invaded by U.S. troops because of a false reason.

When you get to that fundamental problem it means that to defend the use of an indiscriminate incendiary device over a civilian population center makes you look like more than just the run of the mill sadist.

Well, maybe that does matter.

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Some of you may know that my son returned from Iraq not too long ago.

Thank you for sharing this with us, Bikereddie. And thank you to your son for defending freedom in Iraq. Is your son also an ATS-Member?

Val

That first photo you posted could really pass off as a giant grandfather porcupine's head. I didn't know they were sea-going, tho.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by jsobecky]

No it's not the same as any other explosive.

Really? How is it different? It functions the exact same as other incendiaries. It's use in Fallujah broke no convention.

And there was no need to use it on a civilian population center...period. I think some one else put it real well. When all the braying dies down the root cause of the bad decision on this lies with the fact U.S. military was battling in the city of a country invaded by U.S. troops because of a false reason.

No, these two are complete unrelated. Anyone who takes into account their feelings about the war before it to judge whether it is being fought right to achieve the goals is simply biased.

You have an agenda. You are trying to make the American government look hypocritical. In the end, using these types of weapons is not banned or against any rule.

How, exactly, does using white phosphorus relate to whether we should have invaded or not? Two completely unrelated points.

When you get to that fundamental problem it means that to defend the use of an indiscriminate incendiary device over a civilian population center makes you look like more than just the run of the mill sadist.

There were almost no civilians left in Fallujah. It was an evacuated civilian center now being used a stronghold by the enemy. It was an almost pure military installation.

So, let me make this clear. Once civilians leave an area, it stops being a civilian population center.

And, if you think what America did was wrong, address the various treaties and conventions that address such matters. Bitch about the rule, don't bitch at America after the fact when they didn't break any rules.

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Some of you may know that my son returned from Iraq not too long ago.

Thank you for sharing this with us, Bikereddie. And thank you to your son for defending freedom in Iraq. Is your son also an ATS-Member?

Yes thank your son with all my heart for crimes that his buddys did...

But hey dont worry... what goes around comes around.

Originally posted by Jakomo

US backed sanctions killed upwards of half a million Iraqi children. By restricting meds and food.

Read something some time.

jako

Wrong. It was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, which made them binding on all U.N. members.

Even bin Laden lashed out at the U.N. over the sanctions.

Nice move, trying to make it sound like it was all the USA.

Originally posted by Valhall
Because it was the U.S. that used it.

Give me my $20, because that's the only line of poo-poo that's going to work here.

Chemical weapons use the properties of the subtance itself to inflict harm- such as neurotoxins, poisons, and the like. White Phosphorous works on more of a "brute force" approach, simply burning the victim. You could use a variety of menas to produce intense heat, but there are a limtied number of specific chemical compounds that can cause neorological failure.

If White Phosphorous were declared a chemical weapon, then basically all weapons are. Explosives simply use chemical reactions to produce heat, firearms use chemical reactions to propel projectiles (and projectiles themselves are simply collections of chemicals).

All you lefitie socialists out there would find anything to complain about the Bush administration. If they solved world hunger or declared a cure for AIDS or cancer you would find some way to blame Bush or find some problem with them. Nobody here has yet posted a quote where they clearly lied about this weapon's use. This is alot of speculation and little on unequivocal fact. No longer do journalists have to back up their claims, they throw something out there and see if anybody will actually stand up and disprove what they hear from the left wing media spin machine. Need I remind you of the Dan Rather situation. NOONE has come out with undisputable proof the administration has done anything wrong. War is terrible but let's put some of the responsibilty on the right people, the terrorists. You guys care more about protecting them then stopping them from killing and maiming the innocent people they attack. We don't hi-jack civilian aircraft and fly them into civilian buildings. We have given the terrorists fair warning to cease their violent and murderous behavior, or be met with the most devasting military machine in the world. They don't understand diplomacy. Look at the French. They want to "reach out" to the radical muslims and help them. And look what happened. Violent murderous attacks. The terrorists need to be dealt with in a overwhelming show of force for our resolve to be respected. With whatever means necessary. If that means using white phosphorus so be it. When Eisenhower was asked how many Atomic Bombs he would order dropped on Japan after they annihalated Nagasaki he said "...as many as it takes!"
We will stop as soon as they surrender and get in line!