BBC: US used white phosphorus in Iraq (as an anti-personnel weapon)

[Barrett808]

US used white phosphorus in Iraq
Tuesday, 15 November 2005, 20:32 GMT

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Early this month, Italian state TV, Rai, said white phosphorus had been used against civilians in Falluja.

...

He said a statement on the US state department <site> denying it had been used was old and based on "poor information".

(more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

[htuttle]

1. What's another war crime when we've already committed so many?

Hell, it's pretty obvious at this point that nobody is going to hold the US to account for this (or for our other war crimes).

The only ones in a position to do something about it are the American people, and they don't seem to care. Maybe if the rest of the world started treating us like the proto-Nazis we've become, Americans would start to take notice. :shrug:

[GCP]

73. The American people don't even know about it

I watched this last night on BBC World News, then watched the network broadcasts, CNN and MSNBC.
Nada, zippo, zilch.

[BonjourUSA]

99. The French TVs talked about this war crime two weeks ago

[daleo]

2. I guess there was no choice but to admit the truth

This is one more example of why the Bush government and Pentagon can't be taken at face value.

Did Saddam ever use WP, I wonder?

[Maggie_May]

3. This is horrifying

how can we win the Iraqis support if this is done to civilians?

[Loonman]

4. US media needs to pick this up

Except for the New York Slimes.

[JoFerret]

72. They dont need to?

They probably will.

Edit: Check their on-line site. It is there today.

N.B. Don't slime.

[EVDebs]

81. Has the Arab media, for whom this seems intended in the first place ?

US media reluctance to show the Blackwater guys charred bodies, but Arab media quickly showed those pics. Hmmm. Now US pics of charred bodies are making it to the media...possibly in Arab world ?

Is the message 'look what happens on jihad if you do it to our guys' ?

And are rightwingers using this now to prop up sagging Bush poll numbers saying 'look at those DU insurgent supporters, who lend aid and confort to the enemy' by saying US targetted civilians, not insurgents ?... probably so.

[acmejack]

5. The US military has always had it.

And it was time fused for air-bursts) so it was obviously intended to be an anti-personnel round.

[no name no slogan]

6. Why not? We're already using depleted uranium weapons there.

Just like we did in Yugoslavia and in Iraq during the Gulf War. But what's a few millenia of nuclear contamination between friends?

[Charlie Brown]

7. Pentagon: US used white phosphorus in Fallujah

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

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Early this month, Italian state TV, Rai, said white phosphorus had been used against civilians in Falluja.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM programme that the US army used white incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said a statement on the US state department denying it had been used was old and based on "poor information".

[Richard Steele]

8. So how many other official statements...

are now admitted to be "Old, and based on poor information?"

He coulda said "false" with alot less breath.

[Evergreen Emerald]

119. same old and poor information that got us into this mess?

[Brundle_Fly]

9. though I am glad they are admitting it...

I am mortified they would use it.

[sui generis]

10. oh, whew. thank my stars and garters it was a LEGAL chemical weapon

that makes it A-OK. Okey dokey.

This is where blind authoritarianism will get you. We live in a nation run by sociopaths who think that if they found that Saddam had a WP manufacturing facility they would have proof of WMD, and yet when we use it, it's not a "banned chemical weapon".

Since when. The pentagon, like every other level of this government, is run by evil demon children who need to be spanked and dropped off a high cliff.

[caligirl]

11. Legal one way, not the other. Marking and smokescreen, yes. But

I always wonder why they choose the words they do. Its legal in one way but not if they abuse and murder civilians with it. Thats not legal. They never say that do they. Just "Its legal".

[EVDebs]

12. This issue was thoroughly discussed but is now being used against us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x173097

The R's will now say DUers don't support our troops and applaud when Blackwater contractors are Bar-B-Que'd . Then the Rush Limballs of the world will chime in saying same.

The atrocities of the Blackwater guys and the use of WP in Fallujah go hand in hand with guerilla war just as in Vietnam. Occupation spawns this.

With "Hama Rules", which means no rules at all as Thomas Friedman has shown us in From Beirut to Jerusalem, playing to the Arab world media, which showed the Blackwater atrocity, is now forcing them to show the Fallujah pictures. This is what happens when the US military 'takes the gloves off'.

Bush's role in creating this war in Iraq with phoney pretexts and no end in sight, the current Republican hijacking of the Democratic Levin amendment today as proof of that -- it still leaves no exit strategy or timetable-- means that the R's will claim to be supporting the troops while keeping them in place for more losses in a war whose purpose is STILL ill-defined.

Are they there to secure the oilfields ? There to 'promote democracy', whatever that means in a region content to vote in Islamic theocracies ? There on a military holiday so to speak in order to test new weapons and strategies ? WTF are they there for ? Bush's annual press conferences never seem to get this answered.

[aquart]

17. I don't care what they say. NEVER argue on their points.

We INVADED a nation which did not attack us.

We killed civilians.

We destroyed the infrastructure.

We did not prevent munitions from getting into enemy hands. These munitions are now being used against our soldiers.

We did not properly armor our soldiers or the vehicles we require them to ride in.

We allowed privatized independent contractors to defraud us and our soldiers.

We allowed an unpoliced mercenary army to run amok in a conquered nation.

We tortured citizens of the conquered nation.

Is torture what our flag stands for?

Now, what word of any of this can they refute?

[EVDebs]

22. "We". They did this on their own initiative, I didn't condone any of this

and I support an impeachment, if it could ever get to the floor of the House. But you are right. I'm just saying now that our troops are there how can we get them out of lower-shitholeia a.s.a.p. ? The quickest way is to let the country break into pieces.

Our troops should disengage and withdraw to Kuwait, providing backup for the emerging Iraqi regular army. Talk is that around 2007 the Brits will withdraw anyway. We should plan on it too, and abandon the 'permanent bases' etc or else put them far out into the desert.

[peacetalksforall]

82. We allowed theft of the world's oldest and most rare antiquities

representing the beginning of civilization. Some of the looting may have been arranged - for the profit of a few. Perhaps some of the money came to the PNAC to pay for their plans and agenda?

[displacedtexan]

13. The telling word: "primarily"

Hm. Why would he use that word if he had nothing to hide?

[Judi Lynn]

14. The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 15, 2005
The Guardian


Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. 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."

The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".
(snip/...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html?gusrc=rss

[Greyskye]

15. "conventional munition"

OK bastards - which "conventional munition" did this (WARNING - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!): http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32

:grr: :puke: :cry:

[EVDebs]

19. The conventional weapon of Jihad, a sacrament of Islam.

The Blackwater guys pictures vs. the reporters pictures. Ask yourself why MSM isn't covering the reporter's photos when Al Jezeera and the world posted the Blackwater contractor's. Hmmm ? They're playing by 'Hama Rules' which the Arab world seems to respect.

www.geocities.com/munichseptember1972/friedman_hama_rules.htm

Also, I've heard that back then at the time of Fallujah, Syrian mercenaries were fighting along with the insurgents. This is timely as now I'm hearing rumblings from Washington DC to do an aerial strike on Syria itself in the border areas...

[pushycat]

16. Who gave the order to use WP? That is the question. eom

[EVDebs]

20. Who gasoline'd the Blackwater guys ?

The troops, who are mostly 19, 20 yr olds, see pictures of those guys and say, 'hey, that could'a been me'. Think they care more about staying alive or their court-martial ?

[Nihil]

42. In those conditions, I would.

If my family had been murdered by mercenaries, fucking right I'd pour
gasoline over them and light it.

And I'd do the same if the mercs had been wearing a uniform too.

Can you not understand the situation? You are constantly defending
the use of horrific weapons against civilians. Why is this?
The victims are "only" Iraqis? Getting a good salary? Don't believe
that "the good guys" can do this stuff?

[EVDebs]

78. Live by sword die by sword; kill Blackwater guys with gas get WP in return

I'm not defending use of horrific weapons, only the idiots who 'show the sword and are forced to use it', an old Arab saying...

BTW, if jihadis hadn't given Bush a convenient excuse to go into Afganistan (or if he was conveniently given 'jihad' as a pretext, LIHOP/MIHOP) they possibly wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...

But certainly you understand human nature once wars get started ? We're ALL victims in this little mess Bush & co. have made.

Get the knot out of your shorts and wake up, the R's are going to use this WP use AGAINST DUers saying WE sympathize with the insurgents (and therefore are providing aid & comfort to the enemy).

[Nihil]

87. "jihadis"? Hmmm.

> BTW, if jihadis hadn't given Bush a convenient excuse to go into
> Afganistan (or if he was conveniently given 'jihad' as a pretext,
> LIHOP/MIHOP) they possibly wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...

If you believe that I'd suggest you have a look at the PNAC document.

> Get the knot out of your shorts and wake up, the R's are going to use
> this WP use AGAINST DUers saying WE sympathize with the insurgents
> (and therefore are providing aid & comfort to the enemy).

So your view is that we should all stop criticising the murdering
bastards using WP on civilians in case some freepers manage to read
enough of DU to find such criticism (instead of just making it up as
they usually do)?

FWIW, I do sympathize with the Iraqis: I feel really sorry that
the US & UK troops are in their country, killing & maiming their
people and destroying their infrastructure.

Furthermore, the Iraqi people are NOT my enemy.
Defending your home against imperial stormtroopers is not wrong.
I dislike the 5% of "insurgents" who are foreign born as they are
just visiting for a fight - like the mercs - but yes, the 95% of
native-born resistance have my sympathy (as do the US & UK soldiers
who do not wish to be used in this way).

If you still believe otherwise, I suggest we agree to disagree.

[EVDebs]

90. Your sympathies for resistance aside, please read my post #81

This all happened about a year ago and just after the election. Bush wanted to, again, look the macho especially after the Blackwater contractor's being desecrated on the bridge, you remember seeing the pictures all over the world press...couldn't have missed it; world published them before the US did.

Now if playing towards the Arab world's media means leaking out pics NOW about atrocities in Fallujah, when the as-yet-unreported media--blogs-- were mentioning Syrian mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Fallujah, this just gives Bush & co. another excuse to go...into Syria. The WP, being meant as a message to insurgents and foreigners wishing to come to jihad in Iraq, is more intended as a signal to future jihadis.

Suprise, surprise, surprise Sgt. Carter. The timing is impeccible.

Yes, indeed, 'jihadis' ! hmmm.

[Nihil]

91. Post #81 didn't make any more sense than your last attempt.

> you remember seeing the pictures all over the world press...couldn't
> have missed it; world published them before the US did.

No change there then. The world usually publishes news before the
US does (unless it is US Admin press releases or a missing dog in
Bumfuck, Nebraska that is headlining the TV news).

> Now if playing towards the Arab world's media means leaking out pics
> NOW about atrocities in Fallujah, when the as-yet-unreported
> media--blogs-- were mentioning Syrian mercenaries fighting in Iraq
> and Fallujah, this just gives Bush & co. another excuse to go...into
> Syria. The WP, being meant as a message to insurgents and foreigners
> wishing to come to jihad in Iraq, is more intended as a signal to
> future jihadis.

Can you please run that by me again?

What I think you were saying is that the US Admin's final tortuous
admission that they performed war crimes on Fallujah civilians is
somehow going to prevent people coming to defend the Syrians when
the next battle starts. (i.e., the 5% of foreign fighters coming to
supplement the 95% native resistance).

Is that what you meant? If so, how does deliberately murdering
civilians dissuade horrified neighbours from joining forces against
the rogue nation? (If not, could you please try again?)

Or were you just trying to blur the lines between Iraqi resistance
and all of those "foreign fighters" that BushCo seem to believe have
been involved? Maybe the "foreign fighters" were travelling in the
battalions of Iraqi tanks massing on the Saudi border? Or were they
too busy throwing babies out of incubators?

> Suprise, surprise, surprise Sgt. Carter. The timing is impeccible.

Sorry, cultural mismatch ... is that a US TV programme or something?

[EVDebs]

93. "Civilians" are not the same as fighters but you commingle them nicely

I refer you to the Cathar Crusade a.k.a. Albigensian Crusade were the quote :

"...some say Simon de Montford uttered that classic phrase of "kill them all and let God sort out his own" (pharaphrased there because I forget exactly how it went), though others say it was probably Arnaud Armaury, Abbot of Citeaux Cistercian, coining Tim 2:19 "The Lord knoweth who are his"

Vancouver OverView: The Trouble With Islam
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v335/__show_article/_a000335-000011.htm

We know there were fighters in Fallujah, not 'civilians' and if civilians were there were they by choice or forced by Americans back into the city ? In any event, Muslims will say many went to paradise and the military will say 'we tried to evacuate the city'.

But again, as you say 'cultural mismatch', I'm saying exactly that. Bush is playing to his culture of machismo and the Arab world needs to show further victimization.

Only by disarmed passive resistance a la the civil rights movement/Gandhi will this mess be fixed. But by all means, if you like the status quo, military efforts 'order of battle' favors which side...let me guess.

Right now, Islam is its own worst enemy. The schism between Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Christian etc. perpetuates this sorry scenario. It is unavoidable that US commanders, cognizent of the 'Hama Rules' Friedman has written about and the Arab world respects, may be "tempted" to use whatever is handy when the US political system in faraway Washington DC keeps telling them 'just get the job done', or in our culture 'git 'er done'.

You hit the nail right on the head. It is a "US TV programme or something" ! I'm saying next time there's the possibility of a Fallujah-type massing of resistance US commanders probably will use a GBU/43 MOAB type weapon that doesn't leave as much trace evidence.

[Nihil]

107. As do you.

Not quite sure why you quoted crusade histories (unless it was to agree
that this is primarily a crusade for greedy Christians against "heathen"
Muslims). That is widening the thread a bit too much but I do agree.

> We know there were fighters in Fallujah, not 'civilians' and if
> civilians were there were they by choice or forced by Americans back
> into the city ?

As shown elsewhere, the male civilians between 15 and 50 (55?) were
indeed not there by choice - the US cordon would not allow them to
depart. The idea that wives, daughters and small children would leave
their husbands/sons/fathers for the unknown "safe haven" provided by
the US Army is not totally logical.

It was very well known by the commanders and men that there were many
innocent civilians in Fallujah. Despite that, the Warsaw scenario
still went ahead.

> Right now, Islam is its own worst enemy.

Personally I think it's a close run thing between "itself" and
"right wing Christians" but that's a difference debate to this thread.

> It is unavoidable that US commanders ... may be "tempted" to use
> whatever is handy when the US political system in faraway Washington
> DC keeps telling them 'just get the job done', or in our culture
> 'git 'er done'.

I agree to a certain extent. I do not deny that the ultimate blame
rests with the politicians and senior military staff in DC. I do not
however excuse the mortar crews, tank crews, gun crews or air crews
who willingly, knowingly and illegally executed these war crimes.

> I'm saying next time there's the possibility of a Fallujah-type
> massing of resistance US commanders probably will use a GBU/43 MOAB
> type weapon that doesn't leave as much trace evidence.

I agree. MOAB or worse. Sad world. :cry:

[Canuckistanian]

18. It melts the skin right off babies

I don't care how it's classified, if it melts the skin off babies, it shoulld be illegal.

[lovuian]

21. Isn't this what Saddam did???

Awful stuff but then war is awful!!!

[KansDem]

118. Nah, Saddam "ripped Kuwaiti babies from their incubators..."

Oops, sorry. Another Bush lie, another Bush war.

[slay]

23. They need a LAW to tell them that using white phosphorus is wrong?!?!

What the fuck is wrong with our military? There is NO HONOR in burning people alive. :( :( :(

[EVDebs]

24. Another post on the WP. Moderators please merge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1925948#1926113

[not systems]

25. Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL


By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said 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.

...

White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. So when do we bomb the crap out of Iraq and arrest ourselves?

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. One thing is for sure, you stand between cheney and the oil at

your own peril. Then, all bets are off.

[...of J.Temperance]

28. There was a report about this on the BBC last night, TOP STORY

On the news. Of course they also pointed out in the story, that the Pentagon had previously denied ie. lied that they had used white phosphorous in Fallujah.

Nazi pigs.

[twaddler01]

39. Is it me...

or is BBC the only people who know what the heck is going on in this world?

[...of J.Temperance]

40. It's you and me both

The BBC often seems to be the only news organization that has a clue, and actually has proper journalists who get out there and aren't afraid to investigate a story and find out the truth and then report it.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

29. This is a long way from the denial that

WP was even IN the theatre of operations not even a year ago.

So, since they have back-tracked this far, I guess we can logically assume this time next year they will be admitting it's "limited" or accidental use against "possible" civilian targets.

[Freedomfried]

30. I'll vouch for the painful burn injury's!

And the matter of use against civilians is moot, this is an admission of guilt.

Illegal, inhumane and unnecessary chemical weapons were deliberately used.

[superconnected]

31. They are only acknowledging this because they got caught.

I bet they used it on civilians.

[bullimiami]

32. of course they did. they were lying as usual.

guess what else. the italian video is the truth and they are still lying.

[TomClash]

33. This violates the 1980 Chemical Weapons Convention

Protocol III prevent the use of incendiary weapons where civlians are in the vicinity of the enemy forces, regardless of intent. I don't remember if the US is a signatory to Protocol III but I don't think so.

[Just Me]

34. They used chemical bombs on the whole fucking city!!!! How can they,...

,...deny civilian casualties?!?!?!

Fuck this!!! Fuck the bullshit lies!!! FUCK DENYING USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THOSE WE WERE SUPPOSEDLY SAVING FROM SUCK ATROCITIES!!

I am so damn sick of the killing!

We have neither saved nor served the Iraqi people. We've (the neoconfucks and corporacratfucks) have delivered death rather than freedom, oppression rather than democracy, desperation rather than hope, destruction rather construction, hate rather than understanding.

I hate the neoconster/corporacrat regime that destroyed for profit and power and self-fucking-indulgence!!! :grr:

[Massachusetts]

35. WE have become......"comfortably numb"

"Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.
When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb."- Pink Floyd

[Bluerthanblue]

37. nothin comfortable here..

and numbness would be a blessing-
only way to achieve numbness is through chemical assistance these days-
then you begin to wonder what the point is.

We have met the enemy and it is .... and always has been... us.

Lies won't change the truth-
no matter how elaborate, or couched in noble sentiment.

hell

[Megahurtz]

36. UGH! Again!

God!:puke:

[twaddler01]

38. Apparently harmful

<snip from original>

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

I don't really have much else to say....

[caelestissurf]

41. I did a tour in Iraq

Civilian now and I was arguing the other day with a friend of mine about WP. It does take a chemical reaction to ignite, but does it qualify as a chemical weapon per se. That was the debate we were having. She used to be an NBC NCO and she said it could go either way, the Geneva Convention (I don't think) labels it a chemical weapon, but by its definition and what it does it does qualify as such.

Personally I'm not sure how I feel, I was a soldier and do believe that many insurgents are not freedom fighters. My experiences in the Army lead me to believe that freedom fighters work for the public good as well as trying to expel enemies of the people. I did a year in Iraq and I was out on patrol quite a bit and I'm not sure I can name a single insurgent group that we dealt with that was providing services back to the Iraqis. The VietCong built schools, medical clinics and fed the people. The insurgents in Iraq seem to be hellbent nihilistic miscreants. I'm not going to judge them completely or call them evil, or other rightwing rubbish, but I don't think many of them want to help the Iraqi people either.

Just my .02 cents from a soldier that's been there, done that.

[daleo]

96. Would the U.S. army allow "insurgents" to provide services?

They certainly did everything in their power to prevent the Viet Cong from providing services to the civilian population, though they weren't successful.

[UpInArms]

43. BBC: US used white phosphorus in Iraq (Pentagon confirms use)

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

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

<snip>

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military.

...more...

[Bozita]

44. and the unsuccessful female bomber in Amman is from Fallujah?

Why am I not surprised?

[Erika]

52. violence begets violence

Now may we all shed a few tears about what should have never happened.

[Justitia]

45. but, but, "Saddam gassed his own people!"

Yeah, and apparently our own WMDs physically fried them.

How the hell does this administration claim moral superiority over anyone????

Thanks for dragging the USofA into a bottomless pit of turpitude!

[Erika]

49. and we (Reagan/Bush Sr,) supplied him with the chemicals

that Saddam used.

[Bluerthanblue]

77. as well as the co-ordinates on where to aim them...

but 'we' are 'the good guys'.

[xxqqqzme]

46. I asked Paul Hackett if it was used

and he told me it was! After his short speech, I deliberately sought him out 2 ask him if it was used since he was in the Falluja assault. He said "Of course! I don't mean to sound glib but of course it was used." He said it is not a banned substance. I asked and he said he had not seen the Italian documentary. (Met him at an informal outdoor do on Sunday in So Cal).

[UpInArms]

48. also from the linked article:

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

<snip>

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Corect, we never signed Protocol III of the Conventions

and neither have many other nations...

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. There is a legal use for WP,

against LEGAL combatants, aka those who have taken up arms... where it becomes illegal is when you use it against civilian concentrations.

Look the issue is not whether we used it... we did, we have, we will continue to use it. What you think it is only in our arsenal? (One item where it is found are the ever so lovely tracer rounds). Where it becomes an issue of war atrocity or even war crime (yes I am getting technical here) is whether anybody can prove several things.

1.- There were civilian concentrations (given the US gave the population time to leave before they launched the attack any bright lawyer should make the point efforts were made to reduce collateral damage and those who chose to stay did so at their own risk) try thinking like a lawyer.

2.- Even after we gave that time we KNEW that there were civilian concentrations and we knew where they were... any good lawyer may argue they were used as human shields by the enemy... and if the enemy was firing from lets say a school used as a shelter by civilians, guess what, civilians are collateral damage, so sorry. Oh and this actually shifts the blame to the enemy... may I remind you the enemy is dead? It is called one side of the story... best story out there actually.

3.- Orders were given by a high command to fire on purpose on these concentrations... now finding this order will prove tricky, for no commander worth his or her salt would leave this behind... as this is also a violation of the UCMJ... and an atrocity is a death penalty case.

Now why am I getting legal here... there is a reason for it... the burden of proof, even though we all saw the RAI program, is now on us to prove an actual crime was commited... and it is all in the intent.

Now war is a very nasty business hence why our media is protecting our precious minds from it, but folks realize now the burden is not only on us, but on anybody who may want to bring charges against the US. Now I can bet right now the Military is looking for a young Sergeant to blame for the shake and bake fire missions, because we all know a general, or a staff officer, or a Colonel will not pay for it, assuming we can prove intent, let alone the Sec Def where many of these orders have emerged.

[Erika]

62. All in the intent?

We decimated civilian populations. I don't care if W or a young seargent was responsible. They were still out there doing it. But I will clarify, it was not in my name.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. It was in your name and in my name

and the only way to clean this is for you and me to DEMAND that the people WHO GAVE the orders face the music, not private Lindle England.

And yes it is intent, international law just like criminal law revolves around INTENT... if they can prove that they gave all kinds of opportunities for civies to get out and they did not knowingly fire on civie concentrations, they walk...

So START thinking like a lawyer

[daleo]

97. I don't think males between 15 and 50 were allowed to leave

That is what I recall reading. Essentially, any male in that age range was deemed to be an "insurgent" by default. Also, the idea that wives and mothers would (or should) necessarily leave their husbands and sons to the tender mercies of the U.S. military is hardly fair, though it might be legalistic.

I doubt that any of this would pass muster in international law, if there ever was a trial along the lines of Nuremberg. Bush himself said he could care less about international law ("better call an international lawyer" or something like that).

The only court the neo-cons care about is the court of public opinion, and that only barely.

[Erika]

47. The white phosphorous was used on Falluja civilians

Do we never learn?

[Justitia]

50. I instantly remembered this infamous pic

[Erika]

51. My bud tells me that white phosphorus = napalm

It makes me sick. This country never was a threat to us and look at what we did to them.

[Justitia]

53. Your bud is right. White phosphorus = (reformulated) napalm

It is still napalm.
It is abhorrent.
And it is being done in our names.
No, these people were never a threat to us.

Deep shame.

[Erika]

54. Not in my name was it done

I never bought into the Iraq war. I cringed when W sent our troops there. We had no reason, no right.

It is to W and his supporter's shame and may they feel it in their consciences.

[wtmusic]

55. Sorry, the bud is wrong

Napalm is a mixture of kerosene and polystyrene; white phosphorus is one of the three crystalline forms of the element phosphorus.

Using either on humans is cruel and barbaric.

onedit: napalm was responsible for that famous Vietnam pic, phosphorus for the firebombing of Dresden in WWII, which dispatched over 200,000 German civilians in a single evening.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

56. hell of a way to die-still killing each other in the year 2005-sick sick

white phosphorous is a hellofawaytodie-

-especially hitting innocent civilians--

-violation of international law even if it was "accidental"
and they didn't intend to hit civilians-

-tell me why we are living in the year 2005 and we're still massacring each other--

if we are technologically advanced and still not yet morally developed we are in for a lot of trouble in the near future.

An advanced society???

2005?

We're supposed to have solved world hunger by now, shave out heads and fly around in jetson mobiles wearing silver suits.

What the hell happened?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. No WP is a dust, Napalm is a liquid, you are thinkng of

MK -47 rounds which are technically banned as NAPALM... careful there with the langauge or anybody with a little knowledge will tear you apart... nor are EITHER of these considered WMDs

[happyslug]

98. The effect is the same, but two different substances.

Napalm is Gelled gasoline. It is made by the process of adding latex to to gasoline till it jells and becomes a paste. This paste once exposed to air and fire, burns. Generally a very small explosive is part of the bomb that supplies the fire.

White Phosphorus is Phosphorus that when exposed to oxygen burns (No need for a another type of flame to start it to burn).

More on Napalm:
http://www.killerplants.com/plants-that-changed-history/20021008.asp
http://tchester.org/fb/issues/napalm.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk77.htm

White Phosphorus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/phosphorus.html
http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/15.html
http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. It does not, WP is an incendiary but does not work the same

as Napalm and be careful how you use the language

[Erika]

61. So what are the effects?

Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Phosphorus burns through and over clothing

Napalm clings to you and burns, it is really, really sticky...

Also the temperature for WP is far higher and destroys muscle so if you survive you will be missing that for the rest of your life, and the burns are far more targeted, as it depends on the piece which goes down and creates a third degree burn fast. Napalm created burns that go over large body surface areas. Also the way WP works it can burn flesh and leave clothing alone, though the powder will still be there so if you touch that cloth, guess what, you just got contaminated with it.

Now both are terrible ways to die, but because WP can be more closely delivered it is still legal if a country has NOT signed protocol III, while NAPALM is not under any circumstances.

By the way, the issue is not whether it was used, but against whom and how. If I use WP against an enemy troop concentration it is very kosher and legal... now against civilians it is against the laws of land warfare, PERIOD.

War is a dirty business, a very dirty business but you need to be careful to frame this in a way that would pass muster legally... no you are not a lawyer, but if you say it is a WMD to people "in the know" you just lost some credibility, as well as if you call something that is NOT Napalm, well Napalm

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

63. burning up the victims-that is the same- illegal by international law-same

something you wouldn't want your family to encounter
--painful painful painful--
--and alot of civilians were in Fallujah got incinerated-

Napalm/ WP = painful death by fire
who cares if one has kerosene and the the other's powder?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. The lawyers do

and you have to be careful for the framing, you don't have pictures here either. Oh and I can use WP all day if I am being shot at by an enemy force

Now NAPALM is not kosher, so be careful there.

Oh and I am not being cavalier, I used to be a Red Cross medic, and guess what I had to memorize this crap... and I got to see some of the effects of actual war... which is one of the most fucked up bidness out there... there are rules as to how many ways you can kill somebody who is actively trying to kill you.

of cousre I was neutral and it was ilegal for people to shoot at me... yep sure, want me to tell you just how many times I was used for target practice? I was the target...

[sofa king]

100. No. WP is sometimes used as the igniter for the napalm.

Generally speaking, if you're close enough to a napalm bomb to be burned by the small amount of white phosphorous which is used to set the napalm aflame, well, you're going to be burned a lot worse by the napalm.

Similarly, if you're being burned by the white phosphorous which coats a tracer round, it means you are dealing with the much larger problem of a serious gunshot wound.

I think the real problem here is that the massive and somewhat indiscriminate firepower of artillery and mortars is being used in an urban setting. It's a bitter choice between our soldiers and innocent civilians, some of whom invariably cannot or will not leave the combat zone. The enemy is deliberately choosing this sort of battleground in an attempt to prevent the Americans from using that overwhelming firepower.

It's just one more reason why war in general sucks. It forces even honorable people to do dishonorable things, and provides dishonorable people with a virtual playground of violence in which to pursue their perverted desires.

[cambie]

67. Perfectly LEGAL

Lets get it right here. There is nothing illegal about burning up civilians with incendiary weapons either napalm or WP, since the US has never signed anything saying otherwise. WP has the advantage, when used correctly, of making clouds that create phosphoric acid in the lungs, burning them out as effectively as phosgene or other chemical weapons while not being technically defined as such. So, you can all relax about the legal aspect. Sleep well.

[Barrett808]

70. Welcome to DU, cambie!

:hi:

[godai]

71. Intentionally 'burning up civilians' is a war crime (IMHO)

Not like we haven't done this before, in Germany and Japan as well as Vietnam. The argument will be, of course, that the civilians were merely collateral damage.

[godai]

74. From a Timesonline article - against the law

"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."

[Barrett808]

83. Can you provide the link? That's quote worth its weight in gold. n/t

[godai]

85. Here's the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875057,00.html

[Barrett808]

86. Great, thanks! n/t

[EVDebs]

84. Flamethrowers are legal against enemy combatants ? Just asking.

[redqueen]

94. You're totally WRONG. n/t

[soda]

95. what goes around

Does that rule apply to civilians in the US to? I hope we dont see WP used in attacks in America, it´s alot easier to get hold of than other WMD´s and now that the Gov. has endorced its use!!

[EVDebs]

101. US response on any future hellacious terror attack is nukes then...

If you see WP attacks on US.

The whole thing is so 'eye for an eye'. The fools who gasoline'd the Blackwater contractors, if they're still alive...have much to answer for...just like those mortaring any civilians. Their dreams will be haunted.

[0007]

103. You're not Donald Rumsfeld are you? This is a lie that would

be expected to come from him.

Perhaps you'll be one of those that is hauled off to the Hague for WAR CRIMES.

[President Kerry]

117. I believe he is correct.

He is highlighting the awful policies of the US when it comes to warfare. Same with nuclear weapons. The US, to my knowledge, is not a signatory to any treaty banning/limiting the use of any weapon. If anyone knows otherwise, correct me.

[Judi Lynn]

68. U.S. admits using white phosphorous as weapon (finally)

U.S. admits using white phosphorous as weapon

Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Posted: 3:39 a.m. EST (08:39 GMT)

(AP) -- Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November.

At the same time, they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material had been used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is used most frequently to mark targets or obscure positions, 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.
(snip/...)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/16/white.phosphorous.ap/index.html

[Missy M]

69. In other words (according to the Pentagon) white phosphorous...

can tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian. What a bunch of crap that is.

[Briar]

80. Not that WP should be used at all

It is a cruel, horrible weapon, even if it can be judged legal on a technicality. Evidently the US military realised this which is why they denied using it directly against enemy combatants: doing so put them in the same category as Saddam. If it were used against US soldiers, I can just hear the outrage.

And I hear that the Iraqi government has sent a human rights commission to Fallujah to investigate this. No bets on what they will say: after all, this is the same Iraqi government that has sponsored or turned a blind eye to the torture carried out throughout Iraq by militias supposedly in its service.

[Barrett808]

75. British Discuss Use of Phosphorous in Iraq (only for smoke screens)

LONDON - The British military uses white phosphorous in Iraq but only to lay smoke screens, Prime Minister

Tony Blair's official spokesman said Wednesday, after allegations that U.S. troops used the incendiary weapon against civilians during the battle of Fallujah last November.

White phosphorous, in a form used by the military, ignites when it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It is used to lay a smoke screen to mask troop movements and to light up a battlefield. It also can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.

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 critical insurgent stronghold.

Despite initial denials, Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops had used the substance as an incendiary weapon against insurgent strongholds there.

U.S. veterans of the battle have written how they used white phosphorous in so-called "shake and bake" missions, using the substance to flush out insurgents and then high explosives to kill them.

But the Pentagon denied an Italian television news report that the U.S. military had used white phosphorous in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the offensive.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq

[Festivito]

76. McCain: Even Saddam did not use WP.

On Diane Rehm today, McCain sidestepped the WP question by smoothly saying that WP is not a chemical weapon as used by Saddam.

Gee, not a chemical weapon as used by Saddam. That is such impertinent nonsense.

He also pulled some other smooth sidesteps. Too many to recount for me.

[oasis]

89. What about the use of WP by "Chemical Rummy"? The Pentagon has admitted

use in "Shake and Bake". Shake the enemy out by using WP, and then "bake" them with conventional weapons.

"Democracy Now" w/Amy Goodman asked a Pentagon guy back on the show to explain why he had earlier denied the use of WP as a weapon. She said he angrily declined the invitiation.

[EVDebs]

79. Jeepers, the GBU-43/B MOAB was tested March 2003

and already used in Afganistan

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

"The GBU-43/B is large, powerful and accurately delivered. The 21,700-pound bomb contains 18,700 pounds of high explosive. It is 30 feet long with a diameter of 40.5 inches. The warhead is a blast-type warhead. It was developed in only nine weeks to be available for the Iraq campaign, but it was not used.

The US Air Force has developed the 21,000-lb. <9,500 kilogram>, satellite-guided Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bombs (MOAB) as a successor to the the 15,000-lb. "Daisy Cutters" used in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Air Force is said to call MOABs (pronounced MOE-ab) the mother of all bombs. As with the earlier Daisy Cutter, these huge bombs are dropped out of the rear of the C-130 cargo plane."

...So, apparently used in Afganistan but not yet in Iraq, at least as of the posting date for the globalsecurity website. Maybe the WP was considered a more 'specific' weapon to use on Fallujah.

In any event, the 'Hama Rules' the Arab world respects according to Thomas Friedman, play an important part in this along with the possible presence of Syrian mercenaries in Iraq and Fallujah. If 'sending a message' to the Arab media-- whose Al Jezeera covered the BBQ'd Blackwater contractors-- and jihadis was the point of this whole episode, maybe the US military was actually holding back from what else is in their arsenal.

A passive resistance/civil-rights protest of the presence of US troops would have made more sense in peacefully removing US troops, along with Sunni participation in the political process. Ayatollah Sistani has said that a request for US troops to leave Iraq is a possiblity. Imagine a peaceful process and maybe it can work where a military one is failing.

[daleo]

92. I think the Daisy Cutter in Fallujah would have been too destructive

It would have been difficult to hide that from the world for so long. Incinerating people with White Phosphorous works on a smaller scale, so it is easier to hide, thus less world outrage. The C130 may also have been too vulnerable in Fallujah.

Why would peaceful Arab demonstrations mean anything to Bush when peaceful American (and Canadian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Australian, etc.) demonstrations had no effect on him?

[EVDebs]

102. Neutron bomb...destroys people, leaves buildings intact ?

The 'sanitary' bomb.

http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/sciencehistory/neutron-bomb-woi.html

but a better bomb is at

http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink5600.html

[daleo]

105. Yes, I have heard of that one

It was favored by the Reaganites in the 80's, as it was thought it would destroy Soviet brigades without destroying the central European countryside. I don't believe the Europeans ever found the prospect very comforting. The Soviets had a propaganda field day with it - the ultimate capitalist bomb that killed people but left property intact. I think the gamma ray flux would give it away if anyone tried to use one on the sly.

[EVDebs]

109. So, the whole WP vs. conventional weapons was just playing to media

anyway. The US had to show the Arab media, just as with the Blackwater Bar-B-Que by Fallujah residents, that it, too, could 'ignore the bounds of normal human conduct'. No 'merciful and compassionate behavior' there, no siree.

The entire episode was avoidable when you think...Did GWB really have to do the Iraq War at all ? Sure, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing...but like Murtha yesterday, look at the price. Not worth it, even for oil.

Sorry to say militaries can't just insert bullets into their enemy manually and are forced into this science of war. Better to avoid conflict in the first place. In this case, with the UN Report on Arab economies drawing dust on the shelves by now, when oil does run out in less than twenty years the Gulf oil states will be looking for ways to increase contact and cooperation with the US (oops, great satan).

Time it is said heals all wounds. Let's hope the Fallujah mistakes on both sides heal quickly for the world's sake. (save the flaming I'll get on that, o.k. ?)

[daleo]

111. I agree, starting an illegal war was the parent of all further misery

In that sense, it all goes back to Bush's decision.

[EVDebs]

112. The UN's strange silence on everything is unnerving.

I realize that the Joint Resolution of Congress to authorize use of force in Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

in Oct 2002 is peppered with whereas's about Saddam by the UN ... but the inspection program should have been allowed to continue, especially knowing what we all know now (not just rational CIA and DIA analysts, and Intn'l Institute of Stratgic Studies plus many in the military itself, as Ray McGovern so ably points out
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004X.shtml ),

the UN's position on Iraq needs to come out with SOMETHING regarding this occupation, don't you think ? The silence simply allows for the status quo which is a country that cannot move forward due to the occupation by US troops presenting the main target for insurgents. If a civil war is to erupt, upon US troops withdrawing from Iraq...and this appears to be inevitable anyway...it is better to get the thing started NOW and let the people themselves weary of war. Once that is done, THEN US troops and assistance will get the welcome (though not with flowers the Chalabi/Curveball crowd would tell us about), but a decent welcome back.

What do you think ? What should the UN be doing now to ease the US out of this mess ?

[daleo]

114. It does seem like the UN has been rubber stamping lately

It doesn't seem to be taking a strong position one way or another, I suppose because of the power politics behind the scenes. I don't know if a UN force could prevent civil war after U.S. troops pull out, which they certainly will sooner or later. A multi-national Arab force might have better success.

It may be that once the U.S./U.K. troops have pulled out, the factions within Iraq could come to a political settlement of some sort, although it wouldn't be smooth - that is where some international presence might help, so long as they were seen as neutral. The nationalist element (resistance to foreign occupation) would then be largely eliminated. I think that simple nationalism is behind a lot of resistance to the occupation, much as it was in Viet Nam.

Tribal and religious tensions would still exist, of course, but sometimes people just get tired of fighting, especially if it looks like no side can prevail. South Africa comes to mind as a recent example of this, perhaps Northern Ireland as well.

[EVDebs]

115. UN Arab Human Development report of 2004

"Among other points, the report argues institutionalized corruption and pervasive “clannism” reinforce the black hole phenomenon and says Arab countries have failed to meet their own peoples’ aspirations for development, security and liberation."

It's easier to just blame the presence of US troops than really change anything...and stupid US Republicans won't change policy when it needs to follow Murtha's advise. US troop pullback/redeployment in Iraq/Kuwait would allow conditions that James Pinkerton says will be a 'civil war' in Iraq. This is inevitable. So be it. Let them work it out without US troops to blame.

Slaughter of Sunni foes is inevitable
www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppin4515723nov17,0,4563355.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

This contrasts nicely with the Republican's position of 'stay the course', where it is US troops being slaughtered rather than Sunnis. But John Murtha's redeployment proposal was immediately seized by Republicans in a tongue-in-cheek 'withdrawal' vote the other day that was voted down by approbation.

The conservatives would rather continue the destruction of the US military in Iraq than allow those same Sunni/insurgent forces to face the sad facts of life in the Middle East. Democrats have enough common sense to end a failed occupation NOW and pull back, not withdraw.

A strategic retreat was and still is a valued military option. Unless you're a 'stay the course' intransigent Republican with little gray matter.

[MetaTrope]

88. NPR yesterday referred to WP as "an image problem for the U.S. military"

Much like the "image problems" presented by extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, bulldozing orchards, and machine-gunning families out for a drive. Where's Goebbels when you need him?

[greblc]

104. I said it in another post This debate is knee jerk...

WP has been in the Nato arsenal for decades. It a weapon most commonly use for purposes other than direct offense. However Combat is kill or be killed and most Soldiers and Marines will use whatever is at his disposal to save his ass.

War is messy and so are it's weapons. There are few weapons that distinguish civilians from combatants. It matters little to civilians what they where killed or maimed with.

Fight against the war. Not our troops and the tools they use to survive.

Peace.

[Nihil]

106. As I replied in another post, it's not the knees that are the jerks.

> It a weapon most commonly use for purposes other than direct offense.

Hence the uproar when it is found that in this arena it *is* being used
for direct offence.

> However Combat is kill or be killed and most Soldiers and Marines will
> use whatever is at his disposal to save his ass.

The Fallujah situation is not a case of a squaddie lobbing a WP grenade
at the ambushing troops. This is about repeated operational orders to
intersperse WP and HE rounds with the deliberate intention to immolate
the target zone *and all people within it*.

The crime in this case is that these are deliberately used stand-off
weapons (mortars, artillery, air support) knowingly targeted at urban
areas *known* to contain civilians.

Please don't try to blur the issue by suggesting "fog of war" excuses.
This is about soldiers who are not in immediate contact with any
opposition who are discharging "illumination" and "marker" rounds at
unidentified human targets.

[LeftHander]

110. good post....and if we had mustard gas at our disposal...

would be justified in using it too....in the Kill or be killed argument?

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. ST 100-3 Battle Book, July 1999: illegal to use against personnel

U.S. Army Command & General Staff College

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

It's not just bleeding hearts that think it shouldn't be used against people. Which may explain why the Pentagon denied this for a year before realising it had been reported by a couple of Americans already.

[Barrett808]

116. Very helpful, thanks for the link! n/t

[wordpix2]

113. news reports said Fallujah residents told to leave, reminds me of Katrina

victims told to leave N.O. If you don't have money for a car or bus to leave, you stay home and get drowned---or burned by white phosphorus, in this case.

BushCo=war criminals

[Barkley]

120. They'll will never forgive us! Abu Ghraib, Shock 'n Awe were not enough

all for oil.