US used white phosphorus in Iraq

[Joe Sick]

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"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 had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon

Col Barry Venable

Pentagon spokesman

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.

Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus 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."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS

Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination

Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh

Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

Protocol III not signed by US

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

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

He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

"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.

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

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."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

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."

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

[dreamingwolf]

Every weapon we employ has the potential to let its victim struggle in pain till they finally die. Sure willy pete is more nasty than most, but its real usefull. Its not like mustard gas or other nasties where it will linger arround. To me the linger is way worse than the instant. Its really no different than a bomb or a bullet in the realm of instant and linger. That way of looking at things doesnt do well with the emotional types though.

[Crazyhorse1]

Every weapon we employ has the potential to let its victim struggle in pain till they finally die. Sure willy pete is more nasty than most, but its real usefull. Its not like mustard gas or other nasties where it will linger arround. To me the linger is way worse than the instant. Its really no different than a bomb or a bullet in the realm of instant and linger. That way of looking at things doesnt do well with the emotional types though.

It's a disgrace, imbecile.

[BlueTalon]

White phosphorus is used primarily for anti-material, not anti-personnel, purposes.

Hey Crazyhorse, you've claimed to be a Christian in previous posts. Do you really think it's appropriate to have that churchsign/bj picture as your signature?

[Thiebear]

I really don't see a problem here....

Show the white phospherous on a covered position.

Then show an A10 cannon attack on the same position.

no difference.

And yes Crazyhorse your signature is getting you the attention you desire.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

My friend, yes. I do think most of my Christian brethren (I am a Christian) have been duped by the current administration, which has never intended to do other than play us for suckers. We are dumb sheep, brother. Bush is as dedicated a Christian as my neighborhood vampire, but without the morals. Cheney belongs in hell with our insane and doddering leaders, Falwell and Robertson. We now support a regime that supports lying and torture and begrudges nickels and dimes to the poor. Jesus must be blushing. We've humiliated outselves.

Frankly I wish the mods would just do away with you:

Re: US used white phosphorus in Iraq

It's a disgrace, imbecile.

----------------

Re: Im Not A TRAITOR!!

Frankly moron, I'm offended you keep calling and/or implying liberals are traitors and/or wusses. Let me tell you with absolute certainly that if I were so disposed, which I am certainly not, I could...

________________

Re: The truth behind Bush's speechalisms

Bush are a moron.

_________________

Re: Bush's Speech

Nelms, your knee-jerk, mindless saluting to this chief is a pretty good indication that you would mindlessly salute any old cheap jack, tin pot tyrant to come along. Further, it's a sign you'd think

____________________

Re: Has anyone noticed Bush is starting WWIII

Iraq didn't start the war, Moron. But we've already lost it.

[airborneskins]

willy pete is more nasty than most, but its real usefull.

Willy Pete... :laugh:

It's a disgrace, imbecile.

:doh: :doh:

Frankly I wish the mods would just do away with you:

[/color][/b]

Looks like you got your wish Thiebear..

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1849276&postcount=114

[Larry]

Frankly I wish the mods would just do away with you:

Hey, now.

Granted, the dude's a loon. And I think, if we were both at, say, a protest march, I wouldn't want to be standing next to him. But I've noticed that some of the people who've been attacking him have actually been saying nice, respectfull things about, say, chom, by way of comparason.

In short, his presence here has successfully turned chom from "he should be banned" to "well, at least he's not crazyhorse".

(Some folks have claimed that the folks attacking the Redskins name have actually had to do the same thing: That the attacks against "Redskin" have actually strengthened the concept that "Braves" and "Chiefs" are respectable names. Although that reasoning only works if you assume that the folks attacking "Redskin" are bound by concepts like "consistancy".)

Now, yes, I do think the place would be a lot less confrontational if he weren't around. But I'd also claim that frankly, Navy Dave and Sarge have been doing exactly the same thing, for years longer, and have been tolerated.

[Larry]

Now, as to the weapon,

I'll certainly agree that there are cases (based on my vast experience listening to other people's war stories) when something like that can be usefull. One particular case is when your mission is to destroy equipment. (You find a weapons cache. If it's in a safe location (meaning, no chance for colateral damage), then a few of those and everybody stand way back can be a quick way of dealing with it.)

Yes, it's about one of the most awefull weapons I can imagine against people. OTOH, I suspect the argument that "this weapon is too horrible to use" has been around since the invention of the bow and arrow.

So I'd put it into that grey area of "yeah, it's awefull, but so is war in general, so the idea of whether it's too terrible to use in war is at least negotiable."

When you start arguing about whether a weapon is "too" cruel, then you cen get into really silly arguments. Like "It's illegal to fire this machine gun at people, but it's legal to fire it at the equipment that the people are carrying".

Doesn't mean you shouldn't have the discussion, just that I don't think things are really clear cut.

-----

OTOH, is there anything this administration does where their first, instinctive reaction isn't to lie about it?

[jwpanic]

i am in no way in favor of W. or this war. that being said, we are in this war for the long haul so we might as well use every weapon at our disposal. people are going to get hurt or die no matter if you are using chemicals or throwing rocks.

[nelms]

It's a disgrace, imbecile.

No, you're a disgrace.

This is a nasty weapon. More reason to use even more of it against these sick terrorists. The more pain and suffering the better. This isn't a game of PattiCakes we're playing. Our goal isn't to kill them softly.

[Thiebear]

Too Late Nelms, he's gone for now...

Larry:

Removing Crazy (temp/perm) in no way gives a pass to the people that have done the same.

Equal treatement all around...

[Henry]

FYI, Crazy is unable to respond to any of your posts today.

Carry on.

[nelms]

FYI, Crazy is unable to respond to any of your posts today.

Carry on.

:laugh:

[Burgold]

Why isn't this deemed a chemical weapon when used against people or the style of weapon we were so opposed to Sadam and the terrorists getting their hands on? Is it because it doesn't "linger" or its impact is confined to a single target?

I am actually asking for definitions here not trying to imply any good or evil about its use.

[chomerics]

Why isn't this deemed a chemical weapon when used against people or the style of weapon we were so opposed to Sadam and the terrorists getting their hands on? Is it because it doesn't "linger" or its impact is confined to a single target?

I am actually asking for definitions here not trying to imply any good or evil about its use.

It IS a chemical weapon as defined, but not a "weapon of mass destruction". Even so, it is NASTY NASTY Stuff. . .

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

White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.

Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. 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. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.

If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.

[Kilmer17]

We should fight wars with BB guns. Though I bet they can cause some bad bruises.

[Larry]

We should fight wars with BB guns. Though I bet they can cause some bad bruises.

You can put your eye out with those things.

[Larry]

WP, as I understand it:

It is, basicly, a chemical that burns, very hot. It destroys things by burning them.

It is, therefore, a chemical, in the sense that gunpowder is also a chemical. (So are bullets.)

It's a weapon that "kills" on contact. It "explodes", and throws small pieces of itself all over the place, and keeps burning when it hits.

(It needs oxygen to burn, but it doesn't have to get it's oxygen from air. I think, for example, that it can get oxycen from water, and therefore, it can keep burning even if it's inside you.)

OTOH, it doesn't "persist". (It doesn't leave poisons around that will kell people a day later if they touch it.) It isn't a poison gas. (It doesn't travel around corners, or drift on the wind.) It doesn't "kill" via a chemical reaction (other than burning.)

(Although, it does produce a lot of white smoke that is serious stuff in it's own right. I don't think the smoke is techniclly poisionous, but it is nasty. I think the smoke is actually tiny pieces of white-hot combustion products. I'd bet that inhaling the smoke can produce some nasty lung damage.)

To me, I wouldn't classify it as a "chemical weapon" for the same reason that gunpowder isn't classified that way.

It is some nasty stuff, and it's really cruel to use against people, for the same reason that napalm or flamethrowers are considered nasty.

[Thiebear]

It IS a chemical weapon as defined, but not a "weapon of mass destruction". Even so, it is NASTY NASTY Stuff. . .

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

http://www.cdnsafety.com/company/turboflare.htm

INCENDIARY MAGNESIUM ROAD FLARES:

Virtually every chemical in the standard Incendiary Road flare is a hazardous substance. These are a clear danger to both the user and the environment.

Additionally incendiary flares frequently cause painful skin burns and destroys clothing and shoes. Incendiary flares cannot be used at a traffic accident scene where flammable fuels have been spilled and are difficult to light in windy conditions and can leave dangerous debris when burnt out.

We should send them the "TurboFlare" its safe and efficient.

Then we can shoot them to death..

[Raub]

Well maybe we can go back to using napalm instead. Or maybe we can just use tranquilizer darts on the terrorists and then euthanize them in a 'humane manner'.

[Art Monk Fan]

I just watched "Saving Private Ryan" with my 14-year-old over the weekend -- those flame throwers sure could empty out a bunker right quick.

[chomerics]

Well maybe we can go back to using napalm instead. Or maybe we can just use tranquilizer darts on the terrorists and then euthanize them in a 'humane manner'.

The point is the contridiction in our actions. We supposedly went to Iraq to liberate people who were tortured, and murdered in mass with chemical weapons. . .just so we could torture people and murder them with chemical weapons.

I am not by any means saying this is what we are doing, but the PERCEPTION in the real world is this. Actions speak louder then world, and so far, with the black sights, this and other atrocities, our actions leave little to be desired. . . not the best war to win a nation over to "your way of thinking".

[nelms]

This BBC story is just more of the same anti-America crap we see from the media, including our own liberal media. This weapon is just another weapon in our arsenal to use against the bad guys. To try and put the label "chemical weapon" on it is disingenuous.

[Raub]

WP is not a chemical weapon. I'm not sure what you guys are missing here. Chemical agents fall into categories...Choking Agents, Nerve Agents, and Blister Agents. WP is none of the above.

[Thiebear]

The point is the contridiction in our actions. We supposedly went to Iraq to liberate people who were tortured, and murdered in mass with chemical weapons. . .just so we could torture people and murder them with chemical weapons.

I am not by any means saying this is what we are doing, but the PERCEPTION in the real world is this. Actions speak louder then world, and so far, with the black sights, this and other atrocities, our actions leave little to be desired. . . not the best war to win a nation over to "your way of thinking".

Please explain the difference between White Phospherous light on a bunker-like position as opposed to a MOAB, an A10 cannon, A hellfire missle from an Apache Helicopter or even just good ole fashioned bullets...

And like i pointed out above if we dropped 20 ordinary road flares on them from above it would equal the same thing as you described in your warning of what would happen..