US admits to using white phosphorus as a weapon in Iraq

[Martino]

After almost a year of denials, the Pentagon has admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon. White phosphorus is a chemical agent which, when used on people, has an effect very similiar to napalm.

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

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.

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".

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."

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.

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.

[AltimaGTR]

"The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes."
^Well DUH, it was used to illuminate the hidden insurgents heheh!

"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."
^That's kinda tough for them to prove in this case, imo.

[robotic]

unlike agent orange, white phosphorus doesn't cause mutation,
but burning of skin and flesh...!? imagine being sprayed.... that sounds too painful to even imagine.

[Martino]

The idiotic thing is, when the story was first carried last year, the US denied it. It is only admitting it now after a magazine published by and for the US Army, called Field Artillery, published an article discussing the use of white phospherus in Iraq.

US forces used white phosphorus during the assault on Falluja, when there were some 50,000 civillians still trapped in the city ... then denied it. Lied, essentially. Why?

Doubly ironic, since the war with Iraq was supposedly because Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and was about to use them. We didn't find any, but here we are, using agents on Iraqi's which can be viewed as chemical weapons: an indiscriminate weapon that horribly burns and kills its victims being used within a populated city.

Nasty.

[Leinad]

^^^ nasty indeed.

[hooligan]

Wait, wait, when'd we lose their hearts and minds?

[yoMAMA]

:(

[Shogun Empress]

"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. :eek:

Do they come in Mace-sized spray cans?

[haplesshobo]

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."


I don't know what the professor of peace studies is trying to prove with that statement. Sure, the UN treaty prohibits the use of incindeary device like white phosphorous if its being used dileberately against civilans. But, that same treaty also allows the useage of white phosporous against military targets.

Does anybody here really think the US military was using white phosphorous deliberately against civilians, and not enemy combatants? The same US military that warned the civilians of Falluja to get out before it went in? The same US military which has tried to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, although unsuccesfully at times. Even the article quotes an independent reporter who says that the US military was using that white phosphorous not at civilians, but at the enemy fighters who were terrorizing Falluja.

So, if we all recognize that the US military wasn't deliberately using white phosphorous against civilians, I don't see what the controversy is over the US military using white phosphorous against those enemy fighters.

[Martino]

Does anybody here really think the US military was using white phosphorous deliberately against civilians, and not enemy combatants? The same US military that warned the civilians of Falluja to get out before it went in? The same US military which has tried to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, although unsuccesfully at times. Even the article quotes an independent reporter who says that the US military was using that white phosphorous not at civilians, but at the enemy fighters who were terrorizing Falluja.

So, if we all recognize that the US military wasn't deliberately using white phosphorous against civilians, I don't see what the controversy is over the US military using white phosphorous against those enemy fighters.

The 'controversy' is that WP was being used during the seige on a city where some 50,000 people were still living; that the use of WP is prohibited in areas where civillians live; and that the US big brass are now admiting they lied about using WP.

unlike agent orange, white phosphorus doesn't cause mutation,

Here's something else for the people of Falluja to worry about: exposure to even small doses of airborne white phosphorus can cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage.

Long-term exposure to WP can lead to "phossy jaw", a condition where mouth tissue becomes chronically infected and the bone of the jaw actually dies and rots away. Unless treated, the jawbone eventually breaks down and has to be removed.

[hooligan]

Just for the record, apparently white phorsphorus is even illegal to use as a weapon, even if they're used against enemy soldiers and combatants.

[snailpoo]

Just for the record, apparently white phorsphorus is even illegal to use as a weapon, even if they're used against enemy soldiers and combatants.

Nope. The prohibition against chemical weapons is against using the weapon for it's toxic properties. If you define toxic properties to incude things like heat, then every single explosive, including gunpower, would qualify as a chemical weapon.

...which might leave the world a better place, but isn't the proper usage of the term.


The 'controversy' is that WP was being used during the seige on a city where some 50,000 people were still living; that the use of WP is prohibited in areas where civillians live; and that the US big brass are now admiting they lied about using WP.

It's not prohibited. The US isn't a signatory to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980).

This is one of those things where if the US had just been upfront about it, no one would have taken a second glance.


Here's something else for the people of Falluja to worry about: exposure to even small doses of airborne white phosphorus can cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage.

Long-term exposure to WP can lead to "phossy jaw", a condition where mouth tissue becomes chronically infected and the bone of the jaw actually dies and rots away. Unless treated, the jawbone eventually breaks down and has to be removed.

Isn't the whole point of WP that it ignites upon contact with oxygen and burns until consumed? Unless you're the direct target, how do you have exposure or long term exposure outside an oxygen-less environment?


...which takes you out of your earlier comment:

Doubly ironic, since the war with Iraq was supposedly because Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and was about to use them. We didn't find any, but here we are, using agents on Iraqi's which can be viewed as chemical weapons: an indiscriminate weapon that horribly burns and kills its victims being used within a populated city.

Chemical weapons are weapons used because of the toxicidity of the weapon. I'm no military expert, but somehow I hightly doubt WP was being used to cause phossy jaw.

Under your usage of the definition of "chemical weapons" as anything that "indiscriminate weapon that horribly burns and kills," you could include everything from gunpowder to mortars to rockets to ...everything the military uses except for maybe their knives, although even knives could fall under your broad definition because they also could be an "indiscriminate weapon that horribly ... kills."

Seriously think about your usage of the term. When a random rioter throws a molotov cocktail ... are they using chemical weapons? Do you expand the number of nations armed with chemical weapons to every nation that has gasoline, glass bottles, and rags?

If you broaden the definition of "chemical weapons" that much, then of course, anyone armed with anything more than a knife would be guilty of irony.




*the above is personal opinion, and not to be deemed reliable or accurate, or reliable as legal ...anything.

[hooligan]

How about chemical burns, it hardly qualifies under heat. Apparently, there's been reports of a mixture of gunpowder and WP to cause not only an explosion, chemical burns that follow.

Nope. The prohibition against chemical weapons is against using the weapon for it's toxic properties. If you define toxic properties to incude things like heat, then every single explosive, including gunpower, would qualify as a chemical weapon.

...which might leave the world a better place, but isn't the proper usage of the term.

No one said anything about heat, but why use WP when under your own definition any weapon can cause heat? Obviously, WP is being used as a weapon. Why the heck aren't we using flame throwers to flush out combatants?

I think news reports have said that WP is OK to be used to illuminate battlefields, but not directed at people.

[Martino]

It's not prohibited. The US isn't a signatory to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980).

Wrong treaty. I was refering to Chemical Weapons Convention to which the United States is a signatory . The CWC says WP isn't a chemical weapon, but only if it is used for the purpose of creating smoke or confusion.

The CWC's governing body is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked by the BBC if WP was included under the umbrella of the coonvention.

OPC's reply was:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Peter Kaiser http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

This is one of those things where if the US had just been upfront about it, no one would have taken a second glance.

Far from it. If the US had announced beforehand that it intentionally intended to use WP during the seige of Falluja, there would have been uproar.

Isn't the whole point of WP that it ignites upon contact with oxygen and burns until consumed? Unless you're the direct target, how do you have exposure or long term exposure outside an oxygen-less environment?

That isn't the legitimate battlefield application of white phosphorus. It isn't supposed to be used on people.

Chemical weapons are weapons used because of the toxicidity of the weapon. I'm no military expert, but somehow I hightly doubt WP was being used to cause phossy jaw.

Try rereading my message: I'm concerned about the people of Falluja suffer long term side effects from the use of this chemical.


Under your usage of the definition of "chemical weapons" as anything that "indiscriminate weapon that horribly burns and kills," you could include everything from gunpowder to mortars to rockets to ...everything the military uses except for maybe their knives, although even knives could fall under your broad definition because they also could be an "indiscriminate weapon that horribly ... kills."

And napalm, and agent orange, and nerve toxins and depleted uranium shells, and nukes ... what a poor response - scrap the conventions rather than enforce them!

Seriously think about your usage of the term. When a random rioter throws a molotov cocktail ... are they using chemical weapons? Do you expand the number of nations armed with chemical weapons to every nation that has gasoline, glass bottles, and rags?

Seriously, think about the 50,000 non-combatants who might have been exposed to this stuff. And think about upholding international law while you're at it.

If you broaden the definition of "chemical weapons" that much, then of course, anyone armed with anything more than a knife would be guilty of irony.

US forces have used chemical weapons when that is illegal - they supposedly went into Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from using chemical weapons which in fact didn't exist. It's a farce.

[hooligan]

Wrong treaty. I was refering to Chemical Weapons Convention to which the United States is a signatory . The CWC says WP isn't a chemical weapon, but only if it is used for the purpose of creating smoke or confusion.

The CWC's governing body is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked by the BBC if WP was included under the umbrella of the coonvention.

OPC's reply was:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Peter Kaiser http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Yup, this is what I've heard as well.

[snailpoo]

Since the two of you are arguing the same thing, I'll respond to both:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Peter Kaiser http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm



You two need to define the difference between any property and toxic properties.

The problem here is not phossy jaw or the side effects of exposure -because use of WP as a smoke device and as an illumination device IS ALLOWED. That is NOT the toxic property at issue. If these toxic properties the exposure thereto were banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, any use would have been banned. However, by granting the use of WP, your quote from Kaiser excludes these effects from the consideration. So what are you left with?

The remaining issue, and the main issue, here is the burns. The question for you two becomes, under whatever definition and distinction between chemical weapon and incendiary device you two come up with, differentiate the use of WP from the use of molotov cocktails.

Under your definition, what prevents the classification of every nation as a chemical weapon possessing state under your definition for chemical weapons?



And since you mention International Law, Martino, tell me how you get to the prohibition of incendiary devices without using Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons? And if you rely upon Chemical Weapons Convention, then why was Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons needed, at all? Why are incendiary devices classified and regulated under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons as Conventional Weapons, and why do you have to go through a tortured broadening of "toxic properties" to somehow cram your particular view into the Chemical Weapons Convention? Ask yourself, if your definition is correct, why was there a backtrack in the international community to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to add the redundant provisions 3 years later? If you look at the testimony and the negotiations which lead up to Protocol III, it's pretty clear that the Chemical Weapons Convention did NOT cover incendiary devices, as such devices are classified under conventional weapons, and that Protocol III was meant to apply to these incendiary devices.

In short, how does your categorization of an incendiary device as a chemical weapon fit the regulatory scheme of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons? How does your definition NOT wreck the intended definitions and purposes of both documents?

Or are you just trying to shoehorn WP into the Chemical Weapons Convention because you fail under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons?

[hooligan]

Wait, I'm really confused as to what you're arguing. OK. According to the report it states that WP is toxic. The properities in which it reacts to skin, causing burns, and its potential for phossy jaw, etc. you're stating, isn't toxic?

I think several sources already point to the fact that WP is toxic, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say aside from the "toxicity isn't correctly defined". Which, I think, is kind of moot if that stuff is burning your skin away.

If that is all you're arguing, then I think you're dead wrong.

You're better arguing whether or not the usage of WP was correct. Illumating battlefield and making smoke screens. That's acceptable. Using WP munitions and firing them into entrenched positions, that's unacceptabe.

[Martino]

You two need to define the difference between any property and toxic properties.

No. I don't. The Convention already specifies the properties and uses of WP. Anything else is illegal.

The problem here is not phossy jaw or the side effects of exposure -because use of WP as a smoke device and as an illumination device IS ALLOWED. That is NOT the toxic property at issue. By granting the use of WP, your quote from Kaiser excludes these effects from the consideration. So what are you left with?

You still don't get it. The uproar is that WP was used during the seige on a city. A city containing not just enemy soldiers, which would still be illegal, but also thousands and thousands of people. Fifty thousand potential victims of chemical weapons.

Stop thinking about the "allowed" effects and start thinking about those people.

[hooligan]

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".

At least use the full quote.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1115-29.htm

Published on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 by the Guardian/UK
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?
by George Monbiot


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 [high explosive]. 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".

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "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... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidizes, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e. obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

The invaders have been forced into a similar climbdown over the use of napalm in Iraq. In December 2004, the Labour MP Alice Mahon asked the British armed forces minister Adam Ingram "whether napalm or a similar substance has been used by the coalition in Iraq (a) during and (b) since the war". "No napalm," the minister replied, "has been used by coalition forces in Iraq either during the war-fighting phase or since."

This seemed odd to those who had been paying attention. There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.

So in January this year, the MP Harry Cohen refined Mahon's question. He asked "whether mark 77 firebombs have been used by coalition forces". The US, the minister replied, has "confirmed to us that they have not used mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time". The US government had lied to him. Mr Ingram had to retract his statements in a private letter to the MPs in June.

We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.

Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces? Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP who turned from peace campaigner to chief apologist for an illegal war, is, as far as I can discover, the only one of these armchair warriors to engage with the issue. In May this year, she wrote to the Guardian to assure us that reports that a "modern form of napalm" has been used by US forces "are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time". How did she know? The foreign office minister told her. Before the invasion, Clwyd traveled through Iraq to investigate Saddam's crimes against his people. She told the Commons that what she found moved her to tears. After the invasion, she took the minister's word at face value, when a 30-second search on the internet could have told her it was bunkum. It makes you wonder whether she really gave a damn about the people for whom she claimed to be campaigning.

Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

www.Monbiot.com

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

###

[snailpoo]

Wait, I'm really confused as to what you're arguing. OK. According to the report it states that WP is toxic. The properities in which it reacts to skin, causing burns, and its potential for phossy jaw, etc. you're stating, isn't toxic? .

We're arguing international law. Or at least you two were attempting to.

The classification of a chemical weapon is one that is used for it's toxic properties, not one that has toxic properties, but one that is USED FOR IT'S TOXIC PROPERTIES.


The problem you run into is that WP is allowed on the battlefield. The toxic effects of exposure IS NOT WHAT IT'S USED FOR. Even as a weapon, its use is to burn, not to cause phossy jaw. Gasoline is toxic, but that does not make it a chemical weapon.

And since, as a weapon, WP is used to burn and not for its toxic properties, that makes it an incendiary device.

And as a incendiary device and NOT a chemical weapon, you two are arguing under the WRONG convention. Can you not realize that you're trying to bootstrap your way into the Chemical Weapon Convention in a way that would define gasoline as a chemical weapon?

No. I don't. The Convention already specifies the properties and uses of WP. Anything else is illegal.


No, it doesn't. WP doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapon Convention, and the US isn't a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

If you think otherwise, post the provision that specifies the properties and uses. Prove your claim.


You still don't get it. The uproar is that WP was used during the seige on a city. A city containing not just enemy soldiers, which woulds till be illegal,
Sorry, because unless you can magically create a convention that doesn't exist, its legal. Have you even read Protocol III? Even if the US was a signatory to Protocol III, this specific scenario would be a perfectly legal application of incendiaries as a weapon.


but also thousands and thousands of people. Fifty thousand potential victims of chemical weapons.
Even IF the US was a signatory to the Convention of Certain Chemical Weapons, there is an exception that would allow the use of WP not only as an illumination device, but as a weapon, in civilian areas.

Even the quote from Kaiser admits to that.








And hooligan, as you once dismissed articles from Heritage, I will do the same with commondreams. You are smart enough to advance your own arguments and to read the actual source documents of the two conventions without copy and pasting biased drivel.





Which returns me to my fundamental point: you two still havent provided me with any differentiation between WP and gasoline in your definition of a Chemcial Weapon. Is every nation in the world a Chemcial Weapon armed state, because of gasoline?




*again, nothing I say in this post, thread, or on this board should be considered accurate or relied upon in any way, legal or otherwise.

[Martino]

No, it doesn't. WP doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapon Convention, and the US isn't a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

Then I suggest you write a very strong letter to the governing body for the CWC, because they've already said that it does.

Er - and snailpoo, the only person to have mentioned the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons is you, so why do you keep harping on about the US not being a signatory?

[snailpoo]

Then I suggest you write a very strong letter to the governing body for the CWC, because they've already said that it does.

Sigh.


Can you not read the source documents for yourself? Can you not look at the definitions of what is covered under which document?

And if you claim the that Peter Kaiser stated that WP is a chemical weapon, can you reread his quote and tell me where the "the toxic properties of the chemical" includes incineration? (and if it does, how does gasoline not also fall under the chemical weapon classification?)


Er - and snailpoo, the only person to have mentioned the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons is you, so why do you keep harping on about the US not being a signatory?[/B]

Because, if you actually read the two conventions, you'd realize that all the harping you have done in this thread on the prohibition of the usage of WP in civilian areas comes from the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, NOT the Chemical Weapons Convention.


This is like a class where it's painfully obvious that you've read a incorrect knockoff of the cliff notes on the wrong book without ever reading the actual book itself.


Infact, there are three schedules specifically listing chemicals covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Care to try and find White Phosphorus in any of them?




I think before we go any further, it might be a good idea for you to be informed about what you're talking about.

This is Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons (or as good as a version as I can Google):

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:

Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Note 1. the definition of incendiary weapon, 2. the exceptions for the use of those weapons, and 3. how badly you've mangled the terms thus far.



This is the Chemical Weapons Convention:

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

[Martino]

And if you claim the that Peter Kaiser stated that WP is a chemical weapon, can you reread his quote and tell me where the "the toxic properties of the chemical" include incineration?

Incineration? You seem to misunderstand what WP does to human flesh.

globalsecurity.org describes the effects and treatment of WP thus:

WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable).

When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen. Up to 15 percent of the WP remains within the charred wedge and can reignite if the felt is crushed and the unburned WP is exposed to the atmosphere.

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.

[snailpoo]

Incineration? You seem to misunderstand what WP does to human flesh.

globalsecurity.org describes the effects and treatment of WP thus:

WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable).

When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke.

Or you need to brush up on your definition of incineration:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incinerate

At which point, how does your description of WP NOT fall under the definition of "incendiary weapon" under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons?

"Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.




Seriously, please try reading the actual documents before you attempt to apply them. It might help you make a better argument.

[hooligan]

So, has anyone established if WP was used directly on people? If it was, then I think it qualifies as a chemical weapon.

[Martino]

I was commenting on your nice tidy word for the full effects WP would have on the people of Falluja.

The globalsecurity definition of what WP is and does fully answers your question as to where "the toxic properties of the chemical includes incineration?".

And the full Peter Kaiser quote is:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

[snailpoo]

So, has anyone established if WP was used directly on people? If it was, then I think it qualifies as a chemical weapon.
Hooligan, read the damn documents.

If gasoline was used directly on people, it would be an incendiary weapon, not a chemical one. By the same token, WP is the same.

Tell me how either weapon doesn't fit under the definition of "incendiary weapon," and then tell me where either are identified under any schedule specifically listing chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapon Convention.

The way you're trying to expand the definition of "chemical weapon" just doesn't match international law.

[Martino]

Hooligan, read the damn documents.

If gasoline was used directly on people, it would be an incendiary weapon, not a chemical one. By the same token, WP is the same.

Tell me how either weapon doesn't fit under the definition of "incendiary weapon," and then tell me where either are identified under any schedule specifically listing chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapon Convention.

The way you're trying to expand the definition of "chemical weapon" just doesn't match international law.

He's losing it.

[snailpoo]

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

To which, if you read the documents, you run into a host of problems. 1. the definition of "incendiary device" under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, 2. the fact that WP IS NOT LISTED IN THE SCHEDULES TO THE CHEMICAL WEAPON CONVENTION, 3. the fact that your logic that would include gasoline as a chemical weapon, 4. the EXISTENCE of Protocol III of the CCCW 3 years after the CWC, and 5. common sense.

Is the ability of a chemical to rapidly oxidize one of the "toxic properties of the chemical?" Why do you insist of ignoring all of the requirements of the definition of a chemical weapon?

He's losing it.
There's only so much I can say, if you insist on making up provisions and definitions and conventions that don't exist.

I mean, you can believe what you want about international law, but it might be helpful for the accuracy of what you say if... you actually read the actual text of the actual law.:biggrin:






Seriously, both of you, why is it that when you talk about international law, neither of you actually use international law to support your arguments? I mean... that would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it?

[Martino]

To which, if you read the documents, you run into two problems. 1. the definition of "incendiary device" under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, 2. the fact that WP is NOT LISTED IN THE SCHEDULES TO THE CHEMICAL WEAPON CONVENTION, 3. logic that would include gasoline as a chemical weapon, 4. the EXISTENCE of Protocol III of the CCCW 3 years after the CWC, and 5. common sense.

Is the ability of a chemical to rapidly oxidize one of the "toxic properties of the chemical?" Why do you insist of ignoring all of the requirements of the definition of a chemical weapon?


There's only so much I can say, if you insist on making up provisions and definitions and conventions that don't exist.

I mean, you can believe what you want about international law, but it might be helpful for the accuracy of what you say if... you actually read the actual text of the actual law.:biggrin:

Well, now you're just being silly. You are the only person quoting the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

You aren't even arguing with me, you're arguing with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And I think they've probably given this some thought.

[snailpoo]

Well, now you're just being silly. You are the only person quoting the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

You aren't even arguing with me, you're arguing with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And I think they've probably given this some thought.

Nope, I'm arguing with you.

Even though you quoted Kaiser, you're still failing to read his quote. He gives the textual definition of a chemical weapon as a weapon used for it's toxic properties. Note how he does NOT say that using WP as an incendiary is usage as a chemical weapon. He does NOT say that rapid oxidation is a toxic property, and he does NOT say that WP is a chemical weapon. He gave you a textbook LEGAL statement that gave NO OPINION aside from the definition.

And yes, I am the only person quoting the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, because YOU are the person who has it confused with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Look at your own quote:

You still don't get it. The uproar is that WP was used during the seige on a city. A city containing not just enemy soldiers, which would still be illegal, but also thousands and thousands of people. Fifty thousand potential victims of chemical weapons.
Care to find those provisions in the CWC? Or does that more resemble a mangled version of Protocol III of the CCCW?

I have ALSO been quoting the definition of Chemical Weapons, ("toxic properties" ring a bell?), but you keep to have glossed over that point as well. Every single time I say "gasoline," refer to the definition of "chemical weapons." Gasoline is NOT a chemical weapon as defined in the CWC, but would be under your definition of a "chemical weapon." I have also been referring to the Schedules of the CWC... but you've been ignoring all things related to the actual text of the document.




Seriously, it's not that hard. I've even provided the link to the CWC. Click it. Read it. Focus on the definition of "Chemical Weapon" and make sure to read through all 3 Schedules. Then read Protocol III of the CCCW that I pasted (or google a better version for yourself).

After doing that, then come back and make a more informed argument, becuase all you are doing right now is showing off how badly mangled your secondary source was and how you've never glanced at the primary source.

(When your opponent is actually trying to get you to read what you're arguing about... that's never a good sign.)


Then, when you have finished your reading, explain how 1. your definition of "chemical weapon" doesn't destroy Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons by subverting their definition as conventional weapons and make them chemical weapons, 2. how your definition of "chemical weapon" doesn't include gasoline, and 3. how WP ISN'T LISTED AS A CHEMICAL COVERED BY THE CWC.

I just caught your edit, and I think this forms the crux of your misunderstanding:

The globalsecurity definition of what WP is and does fully answers your question as to where "the toxic properties of the chemical includes incineration?".

Unfortunately for your argument, the globalsecurity definition calls it burns, flame, heat, ignite... but never calls it toxic.

Just as you have a problem with the definition of incineration, you appear to have a problem with toxic. Just because something is bad for you, doesn't mean it's toxic.

toxic
adj : of or relating to or caused by a toxin or poison;

toxin
n: A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins.


It's that simple. Drinking gasoline is toxic. Being burned by gasoline... isn't toxic.


If you read through the preamble of the CWC as to the reasons WHY chemical weapons should be banned, it fits the definition of toxin as a poison, NOT as an incendiary device... which would explain why WP is NOT listed as a covered chemical in the schedules to the WP. And, which is why incendiary devices are classified as conventional weapons and regulated under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

[Martino]

Nope, I'm arguing with you.

Even though you quoted Kaiser, you're still failing to read his quote. He gives the textual definition of a chemical weapon as a weapon used for it's toxic properties. Note how he does NOT say that using WP as an incendiary is usage as a chemical weapon. He does NOT say that rapid oxidation is a toxic property, and he does NOT say that WP is a chemical weapon. He gave you a textbook LEGAL statement that gave NO OPINION aside from the definition.

You are joking. He says it EXPLICITLY:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

It cannot be any plainer.

[hooligan]

OK, so WP was used on people. It's a chemical weapon.

Wait wait,

it's not toxic, so it's not a chemical weapon.

Wait wait,

Now it's an incendiary weapon.

wait wait,

You can't use it as an incendiary weapon?

Wait wait,

You can't use it as a weapon at all?

Huh?

[haplesshobo]

Well, now you're just being silly. You are the only person quoting the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.


Because White Phosphorous doesn't fall under Chemical Weapons Convention, but the Convention of Certain Convetional Weapons since the burns were thermic rather than chemical. And, those two treaties have different standards on what is acceptable and you're using the standards of Chemical Weapon Convention in this argument.

[snailpoo]

You are joking. He says it EXPLICITLY:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

It cannot be any plainer.

Good. At least now you're attempting to read. Now reread my post, and tell me how the definition of toxic properties, as explicitly defined in the CWC and listed in the Schedules, includes WP's incendiary property.

Point out where the CWC covers a chemical's incendiary properties under the definition of toxic properties.

And tell me, where in that quote, does Kaiser explicitly say WP as an incendiary is a chemical weapon.



From your lack of usage of the primary source legal documents, and from your clumsy use of defined terms, and from your trouble understanding Kaiser's very legalese quote, it's painfully obvious that you're not used to dealing with legal intricacies, so here's a big hint to interpreting his legalese:

Simply ask yourself this: If your definition of chemical weapon was correct, then why did Kaiser give a non-opinion definition instead of simply saying that WP is a chemical weapon? He could have easily just explicitly said what you apparently want him to say. Why then does he just give the definition?

OR If your definition of chemical weapon is correct, why does the Schedule of the CWC NOT LIST WP... (or gasoline)? You continually dodge this question. Why?

[Martino]

Unfortunately for your argument, the globalsecurity definition calls it burns, flame, heat, ignite... but never calls it toxic.

The full text on the website indeed does make clear that WP is toxic, and is among other things a hepatotoxin. I didn't post the whole lot, as I was highlighting its horrible broad effects on human skin. But here goes:

The article leads on directly from the portion I posted with

"White Phosphorus (WP) creates a smoke screen as it burns. Phosphorus smokes are generated by a variety of munitions. Some of these munitions such as the M825 (155-mm round) may, on explosion, distribute particles of incompletely oxidized white phosphorus.

Smokes obscure vision and are used to hide troops, equipment, and areas from detection. Smoke screens are essential for movement in city fighting. In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round.

White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids. Red phosphorus (RP) is not nearly as reactive as white phosphorus. It reacts slowly with atmospheric moisture and the smoke does not produce thermal injury, hence the smoke is less toxic. The extinction for these smokes is primarily due to scattering in the visible and absorption in the infrared (IR). These smokes are composed of spherical liquid particles that grow with relative humidity to an equilibrium size by absorbing ambient moisture that depends on the ambient relative humidity. The mass extinction varies significantly with relative humidity.

The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries.

Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough. Medical personnel should be prepared to treat potential reactions to military smokes once such smokes have been introduced to the battlefield. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.

White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. The WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes.

White Phosphorus - Non-Military Applications

The amazing thing is that White Phosphorus is used in almost every product imaginable – from soft drinks to toothpaste. White phosphorus is used by industry to produce phosphoric acid and other chemicals for use in fertilizers, food additives, and cleaning compounds. Small amounts of white phosphorus were used in the past in pesticides and fireworks.

In recent years, concentrated phosphoric acids, which may contain as much as 70% to 75% P2O5 content, have become of great importance to agriculture and farm production. World-wide demand for fertilizers has caused record phosphate production. Phosphates are used in the production of special glasses, such as those used for sodium lamps.

Bone-ash, calcium phosphate, is used to create fine chinaware and to produce mono-calcium phosphate, used in baking powder. Phosphorus is also important in the production of steels, phosphor bronze, and many other products. Trisodium phosphate is important as a cleaning agent, as a water softener, and for preventing boiler scale and corrosion of pipes and boiler tubes.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and numerous state/local law enforcement authorities throughout the United States, have noted an alarming trend involving illicit methamphetamine production. Methamphetamine (AKA speed, crank or meth) is a major drug problem in the United States. All businesses engaged in the sale of red phosphorus, white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid products should be aware of the use of these products by clandestine methamphetamine laboratory operators.

White Phosphorus - Background

Phosphorus is an element, the name derived from the Greek "phosphoros" or light bearing, the ancient name for the planet Venus when appearing before sunrise. Brand discovered phosphorus in 1669 by preparing it from urine. Phosphorus exists in four or more allotropic forms: white (or yellow), red, and black (or violet). Ordinary phosphorus is a waxy white solid; when pure it is colorless and transparent. White phosphorus has two modifications: alpha and beta with a transition temperature at -3.8oC. It is insoluble in water, but soluble in carbon disulfide.

Never found free in nature, Phosphorus is widely distributed in combination with minerals. Phosphate rock, which contains the mineral apatite, an impure tri-calcium phosphate, is an important source of the element. Large deposits are found in Russia, in Morocco, and in Florida, Tennessee, Utah, Idaho, and elsewhere.

White phosphorus may be made by several methods. By one process, tri-calcium phosphate, the essential ingredient of phosphate rock, is heated in the presence of carbon and silica in an electric furnace or fuelfired furnace. Elementary phosphorus is liberated as vapor and may be collected under phosphoric acid, an important compound in making super-phosphate fertilizers.

White Phosphorus (WP) - Other Health Effects

Systemic toxicity may occur if therapy is not administered. Therapy consists of topical use of a bicarbonate solution to neutralize phosphoric acids and mechanical removal and debridement of particles. A Wood’s lamp in a darkened room may help to identify remaining luminescent particles. The early signs of systemic intoxication by phosphorus are abdominal pain, jaundice, and a garlic odor of the breath; prolonged intake may cause anemia, as well as cachexia and necrosis of bone, involving typically the maxilla and mandible (phossy jaw). Prolonged absorption of phosphorus causes necrosis of bones. It is a hepatotoxin.

The presenting complaints of overexposed workers may be toothache and excessive salivation. There may be a dull red appearance of the oral mucosa. One or more teeth may loosen, with subsequent pain and swelling of the jaw; healing may be delayed following dental procedures such as extractions; with necrosis of bone, a sequestrum may develop with sinus tract formation. In a series of 10 cases, the shortest period of exposure to phosphorus fume (concentrations not measured) that led to bone necrosis was 10 months (two cases), and the longest period of exposure was 18 years.

Signs and symptoms include irritation of the eyes and the respiratory tract; abdominal pain, nausea, and jaundice; anemia, cachexia, pain, and loosening of teeth, excessive salivation, and pain and swelling of the jaw; skin and eye burns. Phossy jaw must be differentiated from other forms of osteomyelitis. With phossy jaw, a sequestrum forms in the bone and is released from weeks to months later; the sequestra are light in weight, yellow to brown, osteoporotic, and decalcified, whereas sequestra from acute staphylococcal osteomyelitis are sharp, white spicules of bone, dense and well calcified. In acute staphylococcal osteomyelitis, the radiographic picture changes rapidly and closely follows the clinical course, but with phossy jaw the diagnosis sometimes is clinically obvious before radiological changes are discernible. It is good dental practice to take routine X-ray films of jaws, but experience indicates that necrosis can occur in the absence of any pathology that is visible on the roentgenogram.

[snailpoo]

Because White Phosphorous doesn't fall under Chemical Weapons Convention, but the Convention of Certain Convetional Weapons since the burns were thermic rather than chemical. And, those two treaties have different standards on what is acceptable and you're using the standards of Chemical Weapon Convention in this argument.

Thank-you. :smile:

The full text on the website indeed does make clear that WP is toxic, and is among other things a hepatotoxin. I didn't post the whole lot, as I was highlighting its horrible broad effects on human skin. But here goes:

White Phosphorus - Non-Military Applications

White Phosphorus (WP) - Other Health Effects

Systemic toxicity may occur if therapy is not administered. Therapy consists of topical use of a bicarbonate solution to neutralize phosphoric acids and mechanical removal and debridement of particles. A Wood’s lamp in a darkened room may help to identify remaining luminescent particles. The early signs of systemic intoxication by phosphorus are abdominal pain, jaundice, and a garlic odor of the breath; prolonged intake may cause anemia, as well as cachexia and necrosis of bone, involving typically the maxilla and mandible (phossy jaw). Prolonged absorption of phosphorus causes necrosis of bones. It is a hepatotoxin.
Can you not see the bifrucation of the toxic properties of WP and it's usage as an incendiary? Do you not see how the article lists the toxic effects under "other" AWAY from the military usage? You still have yet to give me anything that would state that a chemicals ability for rapid oxidization is a toxic ability.


Did you notice how the toxic properties of WP comes buried AFTER "Non-Military Applications?" Did you notice how none of the military applications are DUE TO the TOXIC PROPERTIES? Are ANY OF THOSE SYMPTOMS THE REASON WHY THE MILITARY USES WP?



Now go back to the definition of "Chemical weapon" in the CWC.

You again fail to meet the definition.


"Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

Is the specific design of WP as an incindiary device specifically designed to cause death or other harm through it's toxic property of causing phossy jaw?


Better yet:


9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

Can you not read (c)? Look at your own definitions of the toxic properties: "systemic intoxication by phosphorus are abdominal pain, jaundice, and a garlic odor of the breath; prolonged intake may cause anemia, as well as cachexia and necrosis of bone, involving typically the maxilla and mandible (phossy jaw)."

Unless you're saying that WP's effectiveness as an incendiary device is dependent on it causing phossy jaw... you fail under the definition of chemical weapon.


Simply put, gasoline is toxic. It poisons you, and yet somehow, when someone throws a molotove cocktail, they're not trying to poison their victim. You think that might be the reason why gasoline and WP aren't covered by the CWC?

[haplesshobo]

T
Can you not read (c)?

LOL. This is just karma. Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

[snailpoo]

LOL. This is just karma. Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
I'm a transactional attorney with only a personal and unprofessional interest in international law.

My wife was a litigator in the United Nations legal department who resigned because she didn't want to get transfered to the Hague with her promotion to work in the International Court of Justice.

I've been on the receiving end of not having done my homework a few times. :biggrin:

[haplesshobo]

I'm a transactional attorney with only a personal and unprofessional interest in international law.

My wife was a litigator in the United Nations legal department who resigned because she didn't want to get transfered to the Hague with her promotion to work in the International Court of Justice.


Okay, that definitely trumps my high school Model United Nations participation.

[snailpoo]

OK, so WP was used on people. It's a chemical weapon.
Wait wait,
it's not toxic, so it's not a chemical weapon.
Wait wait,
Now it's an incendiary weapon.
wait wait,
You can't use it as an incendiary weapon?
Wait wait,
You can't use it as a weapon at all?
Huh?

The only reason you're confused is because Martino garbled the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons with the Chemical Weapon Convention.

WP is an incendiary weapon and a conventional covered under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

WP is not a chemical weapon and is not covered under the Chemical Weapon Convention.

It's pretty clear if you read through the definitions of a "Chemical Weapon" under CWC and the definition of an "incendiary weapon" under the CCCW.

Or course, because WP isn't covered under the CWC and the US isn't a signatory to the CCCW, basically you and Martino have been arguing without anything concrete to base your argument from.



If you don't believe me, take a step back, and walk yourself through the gasoline analogy. WP is toxic. Gasoline is toxic. WP as a weapon is used to burn, not because it is toxic. Gasoline as a weapon is used to burn, not because it is toxic. You say WP is a chemical weapon. Why is gasoline any different?

All you have to do to win this argument is to answer that question. The whole point of what I've been trying to point out to you is that your definition of "chemical weapon" is so broad, that it not only goes beyond what is covered by the CWC and includes conventional weapons covered by the CCCW, but that it includes mundane things like gasoline.

So answer the question, and we can end this discussion.

[hooligan]

Actually, if you didn't notice I stopped addressing WP as a chemical weapon under the CWC or the CCCW. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we're using incendiary devices so if you want to get into technicalities then...

White Phosphorus
Description
White phosphorus (CAS #7723-14-0) is an element which does not occur naturally. Industries produce white phosphorus from naturally occurring phosphate rocks. Pure white phosphorus is a colorless to white waxy solid; commercial white phosphorus is usually white.

White phosphorus is used mainly for producing phosphoric acid and other chemicals such as phosphorus trichloride, calcium metaphosphate, phosphorus pentasulfide, phosphorus pentoxide, and red phosphorus. It is also used to make fertilizers, additives in foods and beverages, cleaning compounds, and other products. Small amounts of white phosphorus had been used as rat and roach poisons, and in fireworks, but are no longer used for this. In the past, white phosphorus was used to make matches, but another chemical with fewer harmful health effects has replaced it.

In the military, white phosphorus is used in ammunition such as mortar, artillery shells, and grenades. When ammunitions containing white phosphorus are fired in the field, they burn and produce smoke which contains both unburned phosphorus and burned phosphorus products. In military operations, this smoke screen is used to protect potential targets and to conceal movement of personnel and material.
Chemical properties

White phosphorus has a garlic-like smell. It is soluble in alkali, ether, chloroform, benzene, and toluene. In air, it catches fire at temperatures 10 to 15 degrees above room temperature, and ignites spontaneously in moist air. Because of its high reactivity with oxygen in air, white phosphorus is generally stored under water. It is also incompatible or reactive with oxidizers, including elemental sulfur and strong caustics. It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes.

White phosphorus is a dangerous explosion hazard when it forms a chemical reaction with many chemicals, including alkaline hydroxides, beryllium, bromine, halogens, chlorine dioxide, chlorine trifluoride, chlorosulfonic acid, copper, iron, manganese compounds, nickel, nitrates, nitrogen dioxide, oxygen, performic acid, sulfuric acid, peroxyformic acid, chlorosulfuric acid, hologen azides, and hexalithium disilicide. When exposed to air emits a green light and gives off white funes.

Synonyms for white phosphorus (dry or under water or in solution) include: Amgard CPC, Amgard CPC 405, elemental phosphorus, Exolit 385, Eolit 405, Exolit LPKN 275, Exolit VPK-N 361, Fosforo Amarillo, Fosforo Blanco, Hishigado, Hostaflam, Nova Sol, Novaexcel, Novared, Phosphore Blance/Jaune, phosphorus yellow/white, phosphorus-31.
Identification

* Chemical Name: White Phosphorus
* Regulatory Name: White Phosphorus (yellow or white)
* Formula: P
* DOT Label: Spontaneously Combustible, Poison
* CAS: 7723-14-0 STCC: 4916141, 4916139
* CHRIS: PPW
* UN Number: 1381

Health effects

White phosphorus is a poison which can be absorbed through skin contact, ingestion, or breathing. If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life. Long-term absorption, particularly through the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract, can cause chronic poisoning, which leads to weakness, anemia, loss of appetite, gastrointestinal weakness, and pallor.

Eating or drinking less than one teaspoon of white phosphorus can cause vomiting; stomach cramps; liver, heart or kidney damage; drowsiness; and even death. Being burned with white phosphorus can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage. Breathing white phosphorus may damage lungs and throat.

White phosphorus can cause changes in the long bones; seriously affected bones may become brittle, leading to spontaneous fractures. White phosphorus is especially hazardous to the eyes and can severely damage them.

High concentrations of the vapors evolved by burning white phosphorus are irritating to the nose, throat, lungs, skin, eyes, and mucus membranes.

Breathing white phosphorus can cause coughing and the development of a condition known as phossy jaw -- poor wound healing in the mouth and a breakdown of the jaw bone. The most common symptom of exposure to white phosphorus is necrosis of the jaw.

Exposure to white phosphorus can also cause nausea, jaundice, anemia, cachexia, dental pain, and excess saliva.
Exposure Values

* IDLH: 5 mg/m3 (NIOSH, 1997)
* TLV TWA: 0.1 mg/m3 For yellow phosphorus (ACGIH, 1999)
* NIOSH REL: TWA 0.1 mg/m3
* OSHA PEL: TWA 0.1 mg/m3

Economics

Most (85%) of the elemental phosphorus is converted to phosphoric acid which is used directly or converted to phosphate compound. Final applications include home laundry and automatic dishwasher detergents, industrial and institutional cleaners, food and beverages, metal cleaning and treatment, potable water and wastewater treatment, antifreeze and electronics. The remaining elemental phosphorus (15%) is used in P4-dependent applications which require the element as a direct reactant (P2S5, PCl3, POCl3, P2O5, and hypophosphite with smaller amounts leading to PH3, red phosphorus, phosphonates and other derivatives. Final applications include flame retardants, lubricant additives, insecticides, herbicides, water treatment, cleaning compounds, plasticizers, and semiconductors. [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 4th ed. Volumes 1: New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, 1991-Present.,p. V18 735]

U.S. manufacturers of white phosphorus are FMC Corporation, Pocatello, ID; Monsanto Company, Soda Springs, ID.
Regulation

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets a permissible exposure limit, time-weighted average, of white phosphorus of .1 mg/m3. The EPA lists white phosphorus as a hazardous air pollutant. EPA offices which regulate white phosphorus are Emergency and Remedial Response; Pesticide Programs; Solid Waste; and Toxic Substances.

White phosphorus is regulated under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Under Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, White phosphorus is listed as an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) and has a threshold planning quanitiy of 100 lbs.

Under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, releases of more than one pound of white phosphorus into the air, water, and land must be reported annually and entered into the national Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
National Overview of 1998 Toxics Release Inventory

In 1998, 54 facilities released 2,300,434 pounds of white phosporus. Of those releases, 23,603 pounds were air emissions; 3,761 pounds were surface water discharges; less than one pound was released by underground injection; 2,273,070 pounds were released to land; and, 2,300,434 pounds were transferred off-site for disposal. Total emissions for 1998 represented an decrease from 1997 emissions, which totaled 2,612,966 pounds; an increase from 1996 emissions, which totaled 2,109,066 pounds; an increase fro 1995 emissions, which totaled 1,927,733 and a decrease from 1988 (baseline) emissions, which totaled 4,120,617 pounds.

In 1998, 3,526,199 pounds of white phosporus waste were managed; less than one pound was recycled on-site; 236,289 pounds were recycled off-site; less than one pound was used for energy recovery on-site; less than one pound was used for energy recovery off-site; 981,152 pounds were treated on-site; 1,235 pounds were treated off-site; and 2,307,522 pounds were released on-and off-site.

The states in which the largest amounts of phosphorus were released in 1998 were: MS (12,600), NC (3,732), IL (3,527), DE (3,252), AR (1,705), TN (655), IN (500), PA (500), and NY (368).

The facilities releasing the largest amounts of phosphorus in 1998 were FMC Corp., Pocatello, ID(2,272,700); Mueller Copper Tube Co., Fulton, MS (12,600); Townsend Farms Inc., Bonlee, NC (3,732); Townsend Farms Inc., Millsboro, DE (3,252); Olin Corp., East Alton, IL (3,200); Townsend Farm of AR Inc., Newark, AR (1,700); P4 Production L.L.C. (Monsanto/60% JV Owner) Soda Springs, ID (590); Occidental Chemical Corp., Columbia, TN (505); Metallurgical Prods. Co., West Chester, PA (500).

http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm

Chemical weapons be damned. I do research and this stinks of shit. As long as we're killing those entrenched enemy combatants, and not the 50,000 Iraqi civilians that were trapped in Falluja, ...Mission Accomplished.

I must be missing something, we're obviously not using this for it's toxic qualities, so it must be ok.

[snailpoo]

Actually, if you didn't notice I stopped addressing WP as a chemical weapon under the CWC or the CCCW. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we're using incendiary devices so if you want to get into technicalities then...



http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm

Chemical weapons be damned. I do research and this stinks of shit. As long as we're killing those entrenched enemy combatants, and not the 50,000 Iraqi civilians that were trapped in Falluja, ...Mission Accomplished.

I must be missing something, we're obviously not using this for it's toxic qualities, so it must be ok.

I see. Change of tactics away from international law (good decision).



The problem you now face is, are 50,000 people adversely at risk because of the white phosphorus shells, and do you now restrict weapons from being made from anything with a hint or toxicidity?

Look at your report: those health effects are from 4 million pounds from 54 facilities. How much phosphorus is in a shell and how many shells were used? The problem you have when you get away from the chemical weapon categorization is that you lose the shocking awfulness of a tiny iota of the substance. You're now arguing at a pollutant measured in millions of pounds, and dangerous at prolonged exposure.

I guessed you missed Martino's post about WP:

The amazing thing is that White Phosphorus is used in almost every product imaginable – from soft drinks to toothpaste. White phosphorus is used by industry to produce phosphoric acid and other chemicals for use in fertilizers, food additives, and cleaning compounds. Small amounts of white phosphorus were used in the past in pesticides and fireworks.




And from a purely philosophical point of view, aren't weapons by nature supposed to be dangerous? Whats the ethical difference between a bullet or an explosive and a pollutant? The obvious answer is nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and chemical weapons, as these weapons are so ethically wrong on the spectrum of harm, that they constitute evil beyond moral acceptence. The only problem is that you've just conceded WP isn't one of them. You're now stuck arguing that WP is a pollutant, a much less noxious thing than a fired bullet.

Take a look at all the other chemicals listed:

http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/index.htm

Are these to be banned from weaponization too? Do you limit weapons to those that don't harm people?

[hooligan]

I see. Change of tactics away from international law (good decision).

The problem you now face is, are 50,000 people adversely at risk because of the white phosphorus shells, and do you now restrict weapons from being made from anything with a hint or toxicidity?

Look at your report: those health effects are from 4 million pounds from 54 facilities. How much phosphorus is in a shell and how many shells were used? The problem you have when you get away from the chemical weapon categorization is that you lose the shocking awfulness of a tiny iota of the substance. You're now arguing at a pollutant measured in millions of pounds, and dangerous at prolonged exposure.

I guessed you missed Martino's post about WP:

And from a purely philosophical point of view, aren't weapons by nature supposed to be dangerous? Whats the ethical difference between a bullet or an explosive and a pollutant? The obvious answer is nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and chemical weapons, as these weapons are so ethically wrong on the spectrum of harm, that they constitute evil beyond moral acceptence. The only problem is that you've just conceded WP isn't one of them. You're now stuck arguing that WP is a pollutant, a much less noxious thing than a fired bullet.

Take a look at all the other chemicals listed:

http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/index.htm

Are these to be banned from weaponization too? Do you limit weapons to those that don't harm people?

Please, you know damn well you ought to have the moral high ground in this war. Also, based on the lies that we were told about chemical and biological weapons of mass distraction, I'm surprised you're actually defending the use of a chemical in the act of war. If you're going to get into definitions and pull strawmen (or should I say strawchemicals) what's the point? We lost the people's hearts and minds along time ago.

White phosphorous is toxic, we're using them in munitions to flush out rebels. We're using them in a city where 50,000 people are basically trapped. We're using them in a city where once thousands of people lived. And people are going to be in again. Apparently, you missed that, and you missed the fact that this chemical is controlled by our government.

And I guess it doesn't matter just so long as international law says we're free in clear to use these for military support. But, I believe, there's been documented cases munitions, "shake and bake" rounds were fired into buildings, at people, even at non-combatants (read: civilians).

If you're going to keep arguing definitions, sure, you're probably right. But I know what other people understand about this war and it's been a lost, pointless war from the beginning. I'm sure glad we've cleared the definition between incendiary and chemical weapon. Too bad it's still toxic. (whoops)

By the way, never was arguing international law (brilliant observation).

[Martino]

The only reason you're confused is because Martino garbled the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons with the Chemical Weapon Convention.

No - you introduced CCCW to this thread, I haven't referred to it at all. The only Convention I have referred to is that of the Chemical Weapons Convention, because its governing body thinks WP qualifies as a chemical weapon.
WP is an incendiary weapon and a conventional covered under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

The CWC spokesman has said WP would be regarded as a chemical weapon if used outside its legal military applications.

WP is not a chemical weapon and is not covered under the Chemical Weapon Convention.

Kaiser contradicts you. The US military says it isn't a chemical weapon. The effects of WP contradict the US military.

"Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside." BBC Q&A website

It's pretty clear if you read through the definitions of a "Chemical Weapon" under CWC and the definition of an "incendiary weapon" under the CCCW.

Or course, because WP isn't covered under the CWC and the US isn't a signatory to the CCCW, basically you and Martino have been arguing without anything concrete to base your argument from.

Funny, and there's me thinking this thread was reporting on the fact that the US military used WP as a weapon in Iraq, but denied the fact for a year before being caught out. What could be more concrete.

Your points about which Convention applies seem to ignore one fact completely - white phosphorus was used inappropriately.

[b]If you don't believe me, take a step back, and walk yourself through the gasoline analogy. WP is toxic. Gasoline is toxic. WP as a weapon is used to burn, not because it is toxic. Gasoline as a weapon is used to burn, not because it is toxic. You say WP is a chemical weapon. Why is gasoline any different?

Funnily enough, napalm is a gasoline-based weapon that happens to be illegal to use against civilians - which is the bottom line. It is illegal to use napalm on civillians, just as it is illegal to use WP on civillians.

The US military insists that WP isn't a chemical weapon in its defence. Critics point out that many of WP's effects are a result of its caustic properties. And that's what the first two or three messages in this thread were all about: the US admitting it has lied about using WP as a weapon

You wrangling about whether WP is or isn't a chemical weapon isn't going to be resolved here, and not by you and me, but criticising me for citing a particular Convention as being appropriate because the regulating body says the Convention applies is daft.

I think it's pretty sad that you've not once considered the people of Falluja in your calculations, and clearly think the use of these kind of weapons is defensible.

[snailpoo]

Martino,

If you are unable to read legal text on face for what it says, and not for what you want it to say, then you have no business talking about international law.

Kaiser contradicts you. The US military says it isn't a chemical weapon. The effects of WP contradict the US military.

"Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

Read the quote by Kaiser again, very, very slowly and carefully. He does NOT say the WP is a chemical weapon. He DOES SAY that WP used for its toxic properties would be a chemical weapon. Now find me ANYWHERE where 1. the incindeary properties of a chemcial is considered toxic OR 2. where WP was used to cause phossy jaw.

The fact that it might be toxic with prolonged exposure or that it might be a toxic pollutant doesn't make it a chemical weapon if it's NOT BEING USED FOR THE TOXIC PROPERTIES.

Can you not read the Kaiser quote?

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Does he say WP used as an incendiary is a chemical weapon? Do you know the difference between an affirmative statement and a qualified statement?

Just in case you missed it in grade school, an affirmative statement is a short declaration: "WP is a chemical weapon." In my version of reality, I don't see that particular affirmative statement in the quote. Do you?

A qualified statement has a bunch of qualifications that must be true before you can reach the declaration. "You might be able a competent debater IF YOU COULD READ PRIMARY SOURCES." Do you see the difference? You don't get your competent debater status until AFTER you learn to read documents. Similarly, WP doesn't get chemical weapon status, in the words of Kaiser, until
used against humans or animals [to] cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical.

Can you get that through your stubborn grasp? You say WP is toxic because it causes phossy jaw. Therefore, the requirement for WP to be a chemical weapon is that it must used to cause harm or death through it's ability to cause phossy jaw.




And here's the classic example of your ignorance and your continued refusal to actually read the documents you're attempting to argue about:

You claim this:

No - you introduced CCCW to this thread, I haven't referred to it at all.

And then you continue to bullshit about this:

Funnily enough, [I]napalm is a gasoline-based weapon that happens to be illegal to use against civilians - which is the bottom line. It is illegal to use napalm on civillians, just as it is illegal to use WP on civillians.

The reason why I bring up CCCW is that you persist in confusing the CWC with the CCCW.

I even provided the link to the CWC. READ IT. WHICH PROVISION OF THE CWC SUPPORTS YOUR QUOTE? READ THE CWC. PROVE ME WRONG, AND FIND THOSE PROVISIONS.

Napalm is an incindary and covered under the CCCW NOT THE CWC. The concept of using weapons against civilian areas is covered under the CCCW, NOT THE CWC. Did you ever notice how the term "chemical weapon" and the CWC is important to your argument only for its shock value as a name? It's pretty funny how when you actually try to get down to the illegalities for it's use, you're stuck with a mangled version of the CCCW, which is pretty ironic given the definitions of "incindiary device" and your persistent claim to not be talking about the CCCW.



What's been really amusing to me this entire time is that you're like the class idiot who is bullshitting an answer because he not only read an innacurate knockoff of the cliff notes instead of reading the assigned book, he read an innacurate knockoff of the cliff notes to the wrong book.

White phosphorous is toxic, we're using them in munitions to flush out rebels. We're using them in a city where 50,000 people are basically trapped. We're using them in a city where once thousands of people lived. And people are going to be in again. Apparently, you missed that, and you missed the fact that this chemical is controlled by our government.

Yes, toxic and controlled in the millions of pounds.



By the way, never was arguing international law (brilliant observation).

My mistake, in the future, I'll just assume when you talk about illegalities and technical terms that you're not basing it off of anything but your own opinion.


Just for the record, apparently white phorsphorus is even illegal to use as a weapon, even if they're used against enemy soldiers and combatants.


So, has anyone established if WP was used directly on people? If it was, then I think it qualifies as a chemical weapon.

[hooligan]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-26.htm

Published on Thursday, November 17, 2005 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Ohio)
Phosphorus Tale Burns Pentagon
by Elizabeth Sullivan


The Iraq war has come full circle.

As if the spectacle of U.S. senators rushing to cover posteriors over their earlier war enthusiasm weren't bad enough, now the Pentagon admits that earlier denials were wrong and it did use incendiary "white phosphorus" weapons in Fallujah.

White phosphorus bombs aren't banned, since they can create necessary illumination in battle. However, when used for chemical properties that burn on contact and keep burning when exposed to oxygen, they can be a horrific force for civilian terror. The allies' 1943 Operation Gomorrah firebombing of Hamburg took an estimated 37,000 lives.

That's why Protocol III of the 1980 convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. Among other things, the protocol - which the United States has not signed - bars the use of firebombs against military forces hiding among large concentrations of civilians. That would seem to encompass Fallujah, once a city of 300,000.

U.S. soldiers' own accounts of their actions at Fallujah support the use of "WP" - white phosphorus - to terrorize and flush out insurgents.

"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 high explosives, wrote three members of the 2nd Infantry's fire-support task force in a recent issue of the journal, Field Artillery.

Al-Jazeera television already is broadcasting horrific images of burned victims lifted from a recent Italian television documentary, "Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre," that alleged that women and children died from white phosphorus burns.

U.S. officials can deny for a year of Sundays targeting Fallujah's civilians, while Iraqi insurgents don't hesitate putting white phosphorus in their roadside bombs against civilians. Yet the damage is done.

Let's review:

The United States went to war citing Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons appetite as one excuse. Remember Paul Wolfowitz's comment to Vanity Fair interviewer Sam Tanenhaus: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason . . ."

The advertised large chemical weapons stockpiles, the "renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX" nerve gas and the active atomic bomb program weren't there.

Saddam never used chemical weapons against U.S. forces. But now U.S. forces admit using weapons with chemical properties against Iraqis.

On Tuesday night, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed to BBC radio that white phosphorus munitions were used during attacks on enemy forces inside Fallujah.

"When you have enemy forces in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on," Venable was quoted in the Daily Telegraph newspaper of London, "one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke will drive them out so that you can kill them with high explosives."

Venable added that such use of incendiary weapons "against enemy combatants" is a permitted use.

Venable apparently failed to brief others that the official line had changed.

"U.S. forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons," Robert Tuttle, former car salesman turned U.S. ambassador to Britain, wrote in Tuesday's Independent newspaper.

The United States has much, much more to do to sort out fact from fiction and tell the world exactly what happened. Truth matters, on this and other aspects of the march to war.

If this Congress and the Bush administration don't want to preside over a willy-nilly withdrawal from Iraq a la Saigon 1975, they better own up to the war's lies, manipulations and moral shortcuts, and devise a better plan - one more attuned to a war of ideas in the heart of Islam.

Elizabeth Sullivan is The Plain Dealer's foreign-affairs columnist and an associate editor of the editorial pages.

© 2005 The Plain Dealer

###

Uh huh, we established that WP is toxic, oh, and is considered a poison. Actually, owners of land must acknowledge to new buyers if there land is tainted by WP. It's controlled because of it's chemical properties. Regardless of how much there is, it's still considered toxic and poisonous. The millions upon billions of pounds is irrelevant.

[snailpoo]

And hooligan, as you once dismissed articles from Heritage, I will do the same with commondreams. You are smart enough to advance your own arguments and to read the actual source documents of the two conventions without copy and pasting biased articles.


And here's a good example why. Take a look at the text you bolded:

That's why Protocol III of the 1980 convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. Among other things, the protocol - which the United States has not signed - bars the use of firebombs against military forces hiding among large concentrations of civilians. That would seem to encompass Fallujah, once a city of 300,000.


Does Protocol III say what the article wants it to say?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

There goes your blanket prohibition.

Now look at the very next paragraph, which you... didn't bold.

U.S. soldiers' own accounts of their actions at Fallujah support the use of "WP" - white phosphorus - to terrorize and flush out insurgents.

Did you notice how the article's misuse of the Protocol, and then use of the soldier's account backfires, since this would shunt you OUT of the general prohibition and INTO the exception that allows the use?




Again, hooligan, you are smart enough to come up with your own arguments and ideas instead of mindlessly copying and pasting biased material.



It's controlled because of it's chemical properties. Regardless of how much there is, it's still considered toxic and poisonous. The millions upon billions of pounds is irrelevant.

... No. Your problem is that even though you've given up on the chemical weapons argument, you're still trying to use the anathema of chemical weapons as an argument. You can't have it both ways. WP as a toxin isn't the lethal toxin of a chemical weapon that is deadly at small doses. Output for WP is controlled in the millions of pounds because it's not anywhere as deadly or as harmful as a chemical weapon.



The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have all set the inhalation exposure limit for white phosphorus in the workplace during an 8-hour workday at 0.1 milligram of white phosphorus per cubic meter of air (0.1 mg/m³).

How many shells were used? How many milligrams of white phosphorus remains after the explosion per shell? How many billions of cubic meters of air are there in Fallujah?

and with this... you lose.

[hooligan]

Hm, it was an article, and um, it was in a city. It was called Fallujah. There were an estimated 50,000 civilians in the city. Are you assuming the city was vacant? So was New Orleans! (or was it?)

[snailpoo]

Hm, it was an article, and um, it was in a city. It was called Fallujah. There were an estimated 50,000 civilians in the city. Are you assuming the city was vacant? So was New Orleans! (or was it?)
Sigh.

Where does Protocol III require that the city must be vacant? Do you read everything that agrees with you up to the point of the "except" and then disregard everything that comes after?


Or maybe you missed the other exception:

"(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Remember what the article says the soldiers were using WP for?

U.S. soldiers' own accounts of their actions at Fallujah support the use of "WP" - white phosphorus - to terrorize and flush out insurgents.

Huh, flush out insurgents from what?

Oh, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

[Martino]

Alternatively, using your shouting font trick:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Or, as Kaiser put it on Italian television, when asked whether White Phosphorous was a prohibited substance:

"No, white phosphorous is not prohibited by the Convention on chemical weapons in the context of war operations, provided that use is not made of that substance for its toxic properties. For example, white phosphorous is normally used to produce smoke bombs that hide troop movements, and this is considered a legitimate use with respect to the conventions. But if the toxic or caustic properties of White Phosphorous are used as a weapon, then it is prohibited."

Then is a pretty straight answer in my book.

So, in summary, the Chemical Weapons Convention — to which the U.S. is a signatory — does not outlaw the use of WP if the purpose is to make smoke, or as an incendiary against material facilities. But using WP as a weapon to directly attack human beings is considered illegal because (this bit is worth repeating): the CWC bans the use of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."

The text of Article II(2) of the Convention states:

‘Toxic chemical’ for the purposes of this [Act, Statute, Ordinance, etc.] means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals ..."

"...The model statutory language above comes directly from the Convention, Article II(2). It first clarifies that any type of toxicity with respect to humans or animals is covered. Accordingly, it is irrelevant whether the effects are lethal or non-lethal, or last permanently or temporarily. If they are non-lethal, any kind of incapacitation if of a temporary nature and any kind of permanent harming by the toxic action of a chemical is covered by this definition. The degree or nature of incapacitation or harm is irrelevant. Moreover, specified dosages are irrelevant for the purposes of the definition. Any chemical can cause toxic effects in humans and animals at a certain dosage, accordingly, the universal coverage of all chemicals and the general purpose criterion are reinforced here. This avoids the need, for example, to spell out threshold dosages for each chemical in the Annex on Chemicals.

The definition does not cover toxicity against plants. Therefore, herbicides are not chemical weapons if they are used solely with the intent to destroy plants. However, they would be considered chemical weapons if they were directly used to kill or harm humans. Toxins, on the other hand, which are toxic chemicals produced by living organisms, are covered by the definition.

Finally, the definition assures that toxic chemicals are covered regardless of where or how they are manufactured."

[Chad]

If I set a land mine and the war ends and I go home and a year later a civilian steps on it and gets blown up, is this an attack? A civilian was killed in a time of peace as a direct result of my actions. Isn't this illegal?
No matter how much I say that the land mine was intended to kill enemy soldiers during the war, the fact is that it ended up killing a civilian during a time of peace and this is wrong. Intent is not important and is nearly impossible to establish anyways. This is why chemical weapons are wrong, because even if used in the most careful ways possible, they will end up affecting people who aren't involved and don't deserve it and the person who uses them has little control over who is affected. Using them is a reckless and immoral act with no regard for humanity.
Splitting hairs about whether it's a chemical weapon or not according to the intent when used is stupid. If I set someone's house on fire, I would not escape punishment by saying that I only did it so I could have enough light to read a book and not because I wanted to destroy their property.

[smorgasbord]

I think the bottom line is the war on Iraq is a criminal war of aggression, to the detriment of both the Iraqi and the American people, regardless of whether chemical or "conventional" weapons are used.

[snailpoo]

Woo hoo, you learned to put size in to the font, but you still can't read what you're bolding.

Alternatively, using your shouting font trick:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
Can you not get this through your head? Rapid oxidation isn't a toxic property.

[hooligan]

I bet you that more people over the world thinks that we've used chemical weapons in Iraq than those who don't.

[snailpoo]

Splitting hairs about whether it's a chemical weapon or not according to the intent when used is stupid. If I set someone's house on fire, I would not escape punishment by saying that I only did it so I could have enough light to read a book and not because I wanted to destroy their property.
You're apply civil law to military war. The laws of war are vastly different. You may not be allowed to burn down a house to read a book, but you may very well be allowed to burn down a house if it is a valid military objective.

The problem with your analogy is that you preclude the killing of any civilians in any war.

Is killing civilians bad? Hell yes.

Do accidents happen? Unfortunately yes.

When you take away the chemical weapon distinction, the weapons of mass destruction/indiscriminate killing distinction, you lose the fact that these civilians were indiscriminately killed. And, in your analogy, landmines are bad because they are also indicriminate weapons. In killing of civilians is not prohibited. The intentional or indiscriminate killing of civilians is.

Therefore, when you lose the chemical weapon argument, YOU ARE STUCK WITH INTENTION.

[hooligan]

You're apply civil law to military war. The laws of war are vastly different. You may not be allowed to burn down a house to read a book, but you may very well be allowed to burn down a house if it is a valid military objective.

The problem with your analogy is that you preclude the killing of any civilians in any war.

Is killing civilians bad? Hell yes.

Do accidents happen? Unfortunately yes.

When you take away the chemical weapon distinction, the weapons of mass destruction/indiscriminate killing distinction, you lose the fact that these civilians were indiscriminately killed. In killing of civilians is not prohibited. The intentional or indiscriminate killing of civilians is.

Therefore, when you lose the chemical weapon argument, YOU ARE STUCK WITH INTENTION.

Yeah, like tell THAT to our adoring fans in Fallujah. The US lists WP as a poison.

[snailpoo]

I bet you that more people over the world thinks that we've used chemical weapons in Iraq than those who don't.
Thanks in large part to people who can't read.

Perception is what you make of it. If you sensationalize something to cover the truth, you're going to get many followers who believe the wrong thing.

If this is the last of what you've been reduced to arguing in this thread, you've lost.

[Martino]

Woo hoo, you learned to put size in to the font, but you still can't read what you're bolding.


Can you not get this through your head? Rapid oxidation isn't a toxic property.

Oxidation is a chemical reaction.

WP has toxic and caustic effects on the body.

From earlier in the thread:

"White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids..."

"The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries."

"...smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough."

"Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations."

"White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation."

"Systemic toxicity may occur if therapy is not administered ..."

"The early signs of systemic intoxication by phosphorus are abdominal pain, jaundice, and a garlic odor of the breath; prolonged intake may cause anemia, as well as cachexia and necrosis of bone, involving typically the maxilla and mandible (phossy jaw). Prolonged absorption of phosphorus causes necrosis of bones."

"It is a hepatotoxin."

[snailpoo]

Yeah, like tell THAT to our adoring fans in Fallujah. The US lists WP as a poison.

You see, now your argument is exiting out of the legalities and the necessities and the context and the conduct of this particular incident.

You've devolved back into a broader question of the war itself, which of course, biased your assumptions with this incident.

[hooligan]

when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Civilian objects? You mean like HOUSES? Houses in a city with 50,000 people called Fallujah?

You see, now your argument is exiting out of the legalities and the necessities and the context and the conduct of this particular incident.

You've devolved back into a broader question of the war itself, which of course, biased your assumptions with this incident.

Of course, don't let your biases get in your way.

[snailpoo]

Oxidation is a chemical reaction.

WP has toxic and caustic effects on the body.

From earlier in the thread:

"White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids..."

"The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries."

"...smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough."

"Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations."

"White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation."

"Systemic toxicity may occur if therapy is not administered ..."

"The early signs of systemic intoxication by phosphorus are abdominal pain, jaundice, and a garlic odor of the breath; prolonged intake may cause anemia, as well as cachexia and necrosis of bone, involving typically the maxilla and mandible (phossy jaw). Prolonged absorption of phosphorus causes necrosis of bones."

"It is a hepatotoxin."

Hello, and welcome to yesterday.

Now, look the quote from Kaiser you bolded and color coded and sized so many times without actually bothering to read it.

WP must be used for it's TOXIC PROPERTIES to be considered a chemical weapon.

Is WP being used because it causes necrosis of bones?

Civilian objects? You mean like HOUSES? Houses in a city with 50,000 people called Fallujah?

I'm sorry, given my earlier mistake of assuming you base your argument on concrete facts and law, is this supposed to be based upon Protocol III or are you just stating opinion?


Of course, don't let your biases get in your way.
I'm against the war. Yet, my bias hasn't inhibited my literacy.

[smorgasbord]

Therefore, when you lose the chemical weapon argument, YOU ARE STUCK WITH INTENTION.

IMHO, we should be talking about intention. Not just the intention behind the use of any particular weapon, but the intention of the invasion itself. That's one of the key issues here. It shouldn't get lost underneath the wrangling about the legalities of white phosphorous, just as we shouldn't overlook that the Libby case was, in the final analysis, a coverup for the Iraq war.

The invasion never had anything to do with WMDs or "liberating the Iraqi people." Members of the Bush gang were writing about invading Iraq before 9/11 and even before they took office. The goal from the get-go was to establish military bases in Iraq as a jumping off point to control the entire oil-producing, strategic region of Southwest Asia in the post-Cold War scene. There's nothing conspiratorial about it -- the documents they wrote are still in the public domain.

So they had to replace the non-compliant oppressive regime (of former US-ally Saddam Hussein) with a compliant oppressive regime. They have no problem bringing back former Ba'athist generals to do their dirty work though, or relying on the support of sectarian death squads.

All the talk about spreading democracy is bullshit. These same guys support dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the brutal neocolonial regime in Turkey (whose crimes against the Kurds rival those of Saddam), and the Israeli apartheid state. At the same time Bush was going on about "democracy," the US was implicated in coups against democratically-elected presidents in Venezuela (2002) and Haiti (2004).

If it's proven that the US is using white phosphorous, it's only one more addition to a list of crimes in Iraq. The list predates the latest invasion.

[Chad]

You're apply civil law to military war. The laws of war are vastly different. You may not be allowed to burn down a house to read a book, but you may very well be allowed to burn down a house if it is a valid military objective.

The problem with your analogy is that you preclude the killing of any civilians in any war.

Is killing civilians bad? Hell yes.

Do accidents happen? Unfortunately yes.

When you take away the chemical weapon distinction, the weapons of mass destruction/indiscriminate killing distinction, you lose the fact that these civilians were indiscriminately killed. And, in your analogy, landmines are bad because they are also indicriminate weapons. In killing of civilians is not prohibited. The intentional or indiscriminate killing of civilians is.

Therefore, when you lose the chemical weapon argument, YOU ARE STUCK WITH INTENTION.
I'm not debating this in the realm of law or legality because those things are irrelevant to since the has been bent and bypassed whenever convenient for the military. So to even talk about these laws regarding war is futile since no military in the world is subject to law unless they lose a war.
It is noteworthy that you only refer to the killing of civilians as "accidents" when history has shown that it is seldom an accident.

[snailpoo]

And this would be exaclty what I was talking about sensationalism and bias:

IMHO, we should be talking about intention. Not just the intention behind the use of any particular weapon, but the intention of the invasion itself. That's one of the key issues here. It shouldn't get lost underneath the wrangling about the legalities of white phosphorous, just as we shouldn't overlook that the Libby case was, in the final analysis, a coverup for the Iraq war.

...

If it's proven that the US is using white phosphorous, it's only one more addition to a list of crimes in Iraq. The list predates the latest invasion.

Let's not discuss whether it actually is a crime to use white phosphorous. Let's just assume it is a crime and push the band wagon along.



I'm not debating this in the realm of law or legality because those things are irrelevant to since the has been bent and bypassed whenever convenient for the military. So to even talk about these laws regarding war is futile since no military in the world is subject to law unless they lose a war.
It is noteworthy that you only refer to the killing of civilians as "accidents" when history has shown that it is seldom an accident.

Then answer this: how DO you fight an enemy in urban warfare?

Forget about Iraq. Leave all biases you may have behind, and just focus upon this as a purely philosphical view. Pretend you are the general. Then pretend you are a civilian. Mesh those two viewpoints together.

What is allowable?

Are you required to bypass any civilan center occupied by the enemy? Who decides who occupies what civilan center? The opposing force has entrenched itself in a city. What do you do?


Better idea.

20,000 terrorists have taken over Houston. Give me your limits of warfare if you are the commander of the National Guard tasked with retaking the city and your family is both among the civilian population living there and serving in the front line of the army you are leading. Balance the need to protect civilian lives with the need to accomplish your military objective and the need to protect the lives of your soldiers.

[smorgasbord]

Let's not discuss whether it actually is a crime to use white phosphorous. Let's just assume it is a crime and push the band wagon along.

I never said it shouldn't be discussed. I just think that we shouldn't limit our focus at the expense of the big picture. The presence of US forces in Iraq is itself a crime (against the Iraqi people AND the American people), regardless of whether they use or do not use white phosphorous, napalm, or "conventional" weapons.

[snailpoo]

I never said it shouldn't be discussed. I just think that we shouldn't limit our focus at the expense of the big picture. The presence of US forces in Iraq is itself a crime (against the Iraqi people AND the American people), regardless of whether they use or do not use white phosphorous, napalm, or "conventional" weapons.
Oh, no, you allowed for discussion, but you already reached a conclusion.:rolleyes:

If it's proven that the US is using white phosphorous, it's only one more addition to a list of crimes in Iraq.

... or do you categorize things as crimes before you discuss whether or not it actually is a crime?

[smorgasbord]

Oh, no, you allowed for discussion, but you already reached a conclusion.:rolleyes:

... or do you categorize things as crimes before you discuss whether or not it actually is a crime?

OK, I get your point. I was sloppy. I should have written, "If it's proven that the US is using white phosphorous and it's proven to violate international law, it's only one more addition to a list of crimes in Iraq."

Still, I don't think we should be detaching the discussion from the larger question of the war, and posing hypothetical scenarios about battling terrorists in Houston when there is a REAL occupation going on with REAL human costs. Politics, not metaphysics, is what's called for.

[snailpoo]

OK, I get your point. I was sloppy. I should have written, "If it's proven that the US is using white phosphorous and it's proven to violate international law, it's only one more addition to a list of crimes in Iraq."

Thank-you.

Still, I don't think we should be detaching the discussion from the larger question of the war, and posing hypothetical scenarios about battling terrorists in Houston when there is a REAL occupation going on with REAL human costs. Politics, not metaphysics, is what's called for.

No, I think that is exactly what is called for.

I might come off as some right wing hawk, but in reality I am a moderate. Invading Iraq drew us into a quagmire. The problem now is... what do we do to get out? And you're right: we do need to look at the larger issue, which would include the fact that we have to deal with insurgents who have no qualms about fighting from people's homes in civilian areas.

..and the reason WHY I'm asking the hypothetical questions is that people here don't think about the consequences of what they propose. Condemning actions is one thing. Condemning actions in such a way that precludes any solution to the problem is another. As much as we might despise the invasion, we can't rewrite history or alter time. We're now stuck in urban warfare, so when we're discussing problems with urban warfare, it's probably a good idea to realize what must be allowable before we go off the deep end and ban all weapons that might harm a person.

(and no, Chad, this isn't a backhanded reference to you or anything you said).

[Arex]

20,000 terrorists have taken over Houston. Give me your limits of warfare if you are the commander of the National Guard tasked with retaking the city and your family is both among the civilian population living there and serving in the front line of the army you are leading. Balance the need to protect civilian lives with the need to accomplish your military objective and the need to protect the lives of your soldiers.You mean, what if a foreign army invaded the U.S. and many Houstonians (or other Americans who fled into the city) decided to stay put in their homes and in the city and fight rather than flee just because the invading force told them to? How best to can we flush those people from the city? I would argue that the invading force should not be there in the first place and therefore they really have no right to use force of any kind to expel those who choose to remain in their city.

I agree with smorgasbord. Arguing over whether the use of white phosphorus is legal and/or justified is really sort of silly at this point. If a cop breaks into a home, and then shoots the homeowner who confronted the cop with a knife, it's kind of missing the point to ask whether the cop was justified in using lethal force without first looking at what the cop was doing there in the first place.

Of course, the question over whether the use of white phosphorus was legal under international law is, unfortunately, the one that has been raised. Whatever the eventual outcome there, it still leaves unanswered the questions of why we are there in the first place and whether our presence there is legal or justified.

[hooligan]

I know that I haven't proposed anything in terms of outright calling it an "atrocity", but I do understand that there are probably better ways of dealing with "urban" warfare as opposed to using shakeandbake rounds. Also, with munitions of an "incendiary" device with many negative chemical properties in an environment called "urban" but should more aptly named, "full of women, men and children who aren't fightingt, but trapped under siege."

To answer that question about those munitions used in Houston, you know damn well that they'd never use those rounds in Houston.

Sorry, I can't argue you on the legality of these issues, afterall, I never went to law school. I can read because I read the MSDS/Safety report for white phosphorous, as can you, I'm sure. I think what Martino and I are getting at (I can't speak for him), is the moral and justification of the war and now to see the use chemicals used almost indiscriminately against insurgents and oops, civilians, just angers me more. I was against the war from the beginning like you, but coming from the background I am, I see this substance they used as causing unnecessary harm and too use your own analogy a reason why they didn't burn them all out with gasoline.

[snailpoo]

Arex,

To which the response would be: Great, now go back in time and change history.

Failing that, you have to look forward, and when stuck in urban warfare, in order for you to judge the right and wrong of actions, you need to at least define what is right.

I would argue that the invading force should not be there in the first place and therefore they really have no right to use force of any kind to expel those who choose to remain in their city.


....which, this utterly fails to do.




I know that I haven't proposed anything in terms of outright calling it an "atrocity", but I do understand that there are probably better ways of dealing with "urban" warfare as opposed to using shakeandbake rounds. Also, with munitions of an "incendiary" device with many negative chemical properties in an environment called "urban" but should more aptly named, "full of women, men and children who aren't fightingt, but trapped under siege."

To answer that question about those munitions used in Houston, you know damn well that they'd never use those rounds in Houston.
Even if the situation in Houston deteriorated into something like Fallujah? The insurgents have taken control of Houston for 2 years now.

The problem you're missing is now, how bad is the WP round? You've backed off from it being a chemical weapon. It's not an indiscriminate weapon. WP does have tolerable safety levels. So, how bad is bad? Earlier you were fixated on the burns. Is this the criteria for eliminating weapons for use in civilian areas? Do you also say no grenades, no tank rounds, no rockets... no explosives?

Give the Houston insurgents parity. They are not gang members or common criminals. They are paramilitary fighters armed with ICDs, RPGs, grenades... all of the nasty things the Fallujah insurgents are armed with. Keep in mind that your family is not only part of the civilian population, but also fighting on the front lines to retake the city. What weapons do you deny them?



It's also interesting that you keep repeating the "full of" civilians part, and you repeat the language of "shake and bake" for it's shock value. This again traces your adherence to biased sources. You were so willing to accept soldier's accounts of using these to shake and bake insurgents, and yet, you somehow simultaneously dismiss their accounts that they encountered few civilians. Which news reports claim the "full of" part?

[Arex]

..and the reason WHY I'm asking the hypothetical questions is that people here don't think about the consequences of what they propose. Condemning actions is one thing. Condemning actions in such a way that precludes any solution to the problem is another. As much as we might despise the invasion, we can't rewrite history or alter time. We're now stuck in urban warfare, so when we're discussing problems with urban warfare, it's probably a good idea to realize what must be allowable before we go off the deep end and ban all weapons that might harm a person.The only reason we're "stuck" in urban warfare is because we're occupying a foreign country against the will of the people. I think if America wants to figure out a way to best address the insurgency, it needs to take a step back and perhaps acknowledge that we have no business being there in the first place. Once we accept that, then it's easy to see that the only real solution is to withdraw our troops. Cut our losses and try to move forward. Yeah we will have potentially created a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. But perhaps that is the price we must pay for putting a warmonger in power who acts before thinking.

[hooligan]

Arex,

To which the response would be: Great, now go back in time and change history.

Failing that, you have to look forward, and when stuck in urban warfare, in order for you to judge the right and wrong of actions, you need to at least define what is right.

....which, this utterly fails to do.


Even if the situation in Houston deteriorated into something like Fallujah?

The problem you're missing is now, how bad is the round? You've backed off from it being a chemical weapon. It's not an indiscriminate weapon. WP does have tolerable safety levels. So, how bad is bad? Earlier you were fixated on the burns. Is this the criteria for eliminating weapons for use in civilian areas? Do you also say no grenades, no tank rounds, no rockets... no explosives?

Give the Houston insurgents parity. They are paramilitary fighters armed with ICDs, RPGs, grenades. Keep in mind that your family is not only part of the civilian population, but also fighting on the front lines to retake the city. What weapons do you deny them?

It's also interesting that you keep repeating the "full of" civilians part, and you repeat the language of "shake and bake" for it's shock value. This again traces your adherenced to biased sources. You were so willing to accept soldier's accounts of using these to shake and back insurgents, and yet, you somehow simultaneously dismiss their accounts that they encountered few civilians. Which news reports claim the "full of" part?

Good point mustard gas and nerve agents for all of them!

[snailpoo]

The only reason we're "stuck" in urban warfare is because we're occupying a foreign country against the will of the people. I think if America wants to figure out a way to best address the insurgency, it needs to take a step back and perhaps acknowledge that we have no business being there in the first place. Once we accept that, then it's easy to see that the only real solution is to withdraw our troops. Cut our losses and try to move forward. Yeah we will have potentially created a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. But perhaps that is the price we must pay for putting a warmonger in power who acts before thinking.

So why does the violence correlate to the areas not protected by the old No-Fly zones? Why do the Kurds want a permanent American base built in Northern Iraq? Why do you rarely hear of Shiite instigated violence in Shia Basra? Why is it always in the Sunni Triange?

Do you leave immediately and let the three groups fight it out amonst themselves? Do you abandon the Kurds again, and watch them get slaughtered like last time?

[Chad]

There is quite a big difference between a defensive war and an offensive war. In the situation of Houston you gave, a military response would be warranted. There would be no choice but to engage them in order to save the people of Houston.
In Falluja, the US military was on the offense. I maintain that the civilian casualties which the anti-humans refer to as "collateral damage" as a result of war of aggression in Falluja are not justified in any way since the very presence of the military there is an unjust act of aggression.

[snailpoo]

You're letting your biases into the hypothetical:

There is quite a big difference between a defensive war and an offensive war. In the situation of Houston you gave, a military response would be warranted. There would be no choice but to engage them in order to save the people of Houston.
In Falluja, the US military was on the offense. I maintain that the civilian casualties which the anti-humans refer to as "collateral damage" as a result of war of aggression in Falluja are not justified in any way since the very presence of the military there is an unjust act of aggression.

So civilian casualties is acceptable if the situation is warranted?

The complaint in this thread about the methods of prosecuting an urban war. You seem to say that if the cause was just, the tactics used would be fine. Do you bifurcate what is acceptable due to the cause? Are troops fighting a just cause given greater leeway to kill more civilians?

OR, have you tied your bias with regards to the overall war to the very limited question of acceptable weapons and tactics?




Again, what I said to Apex I'll say to you: Let's go with your sentiment that invasion was wrong. Now, moving forward, you have two options. You can 1. alter time and history and prevent the invasion, or 2. deal with the consequences and move forward.

I'm going to assume that you aren't God and that you haven't mastered time travel. Therefore, we're stuck with moving forward. Going there was wrong. Is being there wrong? Do you leave immediately and let Iraq devolve into civil war and a state of anarchy? Do you abandon the Kurds who are begging us to stay? Do you ignore the Shiites who, while aren't too pleased with us there, are deleriously happy Saddam is gone. Or do you let the violent minority of Sunni insurgents dictate the fate of the nation?

[Arex]

Again, what I said to Apex I'll say to you: Let's go with your sentiment that invasion was wrong. Now, moving forward, you have two options. You can 1. alter time and history and prevent the invasion, or 2. deal with the consequences and move forward.

I'm going to assume that you aren't God and that you haven't mastered time travel. Therefore, we're stuck with moving forward. Going there was wrong. Is being there wrong? Do you leave immediately and let Iraq devolve into civil war and a state of anarchy? Do you abandon the Kurds who are begging us to stay? Do you ignore the Shiites who, while aren't too pleased with us there, are deleriously happy Saddam is gone. Or do you let the violent minority of Sunni insurgents dictate the fate of the nation?You're right that there's no changing the fact that we went in there and fucked their country up. But "moving forward" does not necessarily mean being stubborn and forcing a U.S. occupation down their collective throats. If the Iraqi people don't want us there, we should give them what they want and pull out. If it means the country will ultimately collapse into civil war and anarchy, so be it.

While most Iraqis are ecstatic that Saddam has been removed from power, the fact is that the vast majority of Iraqis still do not want the U.S. there. That being said, if certain groups seek our assistance, there's no reason why we can't give it where it is sought. For example, we can still assist the Kurds in northern Iraq if they want help, even if the Sunnis are insistent on blowing the shit out of themselves to get us out of central Iraq. But given that we shouldn't even be there in the first place, I think it's up to the Iraqi people, and not us, to decide for themselves whether they want us in their country.

[snailpoo]

For example, we can still assist the Kurds in northern Iraq if they want help, even if the Sunnis are insistent on blowing the shit out of themselves to get us out of central Iraq. But given that we shouldn't even be there in the first place, I think it's up to the Iraqi people, and not us, to decide for themselves whether they want us in their country.
The fact that the insurgents are now targetting the elected government (which they decided for themselves they wanted) doesn't bother you in the least? You know that the elected government will topple if the US leaves too soon, right?

This seems like a huge disconnect to me how, on one hand, you can value the few civilians being killed when the US kills them, but when thousands if not millions of civilians will be killed by the civil war if the US leaves... you suddenly don't care.

[Arex]

It makes all the difference in the world who is doing the killing. We're now supposedly there to "liberate" and "bring democracy" to the Iraqi people, not kill them. If they want to kill each other, and fight amongst themselves, in a way that's their prerogative. We can certainly do our best to protect innocent Iraqis from the insurgents, but only for as long as they want us there. Why insist on providing "help" where none is requested?

Right now, there is little or no support for a continued U.S. presence in the country, despite the fact that dozens of Iraqis are getting killed on a daily basis by the insurgents. Shouldn't that tell you a little something about how much they want is in their country?

[Martino]

Read the quote by Kaiser again, very, very slowly and carefully. He does NOT say the WP is a chemical weapon. He DOES SAY that WP used for its toxic properties would be a chemical weapon. Now find me ANYWHERE where 1. the incindeary properties of a chemcial is considered toxic OR 2. where WP was used to cause phossy jaw.

The fact that it might be toxic with prolonged exposure or that it might be a toxic pollutant doesn't make it a chemical weapon if it's NOT BEING USED FOR THE TOXIC PROPERTIES.

Can you not read the Kaiser quote?

I can. Can you?

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus - "

MEANING THERE ARE KNOWN TOXIC PROPERTIES "

"- the caustic properties"

MEANING THE AGENTS WHICH IRRITATE, BLISTER & BURN - SEE GLOBALSECURITY.ORG FOR FULL LIST OF EFFECTS

" -are specifically intended to be used as a weapon , -"

THAT'S THE BIT WHERE HE SAYS IF WP IS USED AS A WEAPON

" - that of course is prohibited."

THAT'S THE BIT WHERE HE SAYS THE CONVENTION WOULD APPLY TO WP.

GET IT? BLOODY LAWYERS ... LITERALLY

[Chad]

Well I have no desire to play armchair general and talk at length about what tactics and weapons should be used. To me the WP issue is mainly superficial since the whole invasion was wrong to begin with. But if the WP is legal and necessary, then why deny using it in the first place? Why the change of story?
This is just reflective of the dishonesty of the whole war altogether. This is a glass of water spilled in a train wreck.
If you're asking what should be done now, I'm in favor of withdrawing troops. At this point, there is not going to be any bloodless resolution to the crisis. The sooner we accept that the better. The occupation is the biggest obstacle to an end to the conflict. If you're looking for a solution in which nobody else gets killed, well it's too late for that.
The sooner the occupation ends, the sooner Iraqis can solve their problems themselves. There is fighting among the groups who live there, and the invasion is what precipitated this fighting. Iraqis had developed a great infrastructure before and they can do it again. But it won't happen while half the country is pissed off about the occupation and the other half is taunting them and using their collaborator-status as a green light to commit atrocities.
As for the Kurds, they have gained nothing from the invasion. Every nation still considers them 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Everybody is still hostile to them. Their only hope is to have an independent nation.

[Martino]

It makes all the difference in the world who is doing the killing. We're now supposedly there to "liberate" and "bring democracy" to the Iraqi people, not kill them. If they want to kill each other, and fight amongst themselves, in a way that's their prerogative. We can certainly do our best to protect innocent Iraqis from the insurgents, but only for as long as they want us there. Why insist on providing "help" where none is requested?

I would like to know snailpoo's opinion on the US government trying to cover up the use of WP in Iraq. If they think its use isn't illegal, why cover it up at all?

The US has been denying it for a whole year, and only got caught out because some soldiers wrote about using it in a US Army publication.

[smorgasbord]

Going there was wrong. Is being there wrong? Do you leave immediately and let Iraq devolve into civil war and a state of anarchy? Do you abandon the Kurds who are begging us to stay? Do you ignore the Shiites who, while aren't too pleased with us there, are deleriously happy Saddam is gone. Or do you let the violent minority of Sunni insurgents dictate the fate of the nation?

I do think being there is wrong. The US government is there for conquest, not liberation. For the Iraqi people, reconstruction under the occupation means subjugation to US military and economic power. It means losing control of their oil wealth to US companies and being reduced to a wretched client state. For the American people, the occupation costs blood and hundreds of billions of dollars, while at the same time diminishing our security and well-being.

There's no guarantee that Iraq will devolve into civil war and anarchy if the US withdraws. A lot of the attacks on Shia and Kurdish leaders seem to be attacks for collaboration, not for ethnicity. Once the occupiers are gone, there'll be no one to collaborate with. The US presence is fueling civil war. There's a long history of intermarriage and cross-community relations in Iraq.

Still, some questions can only be settled by armed conflict. The borders of Iraq were drawn by British colonialism. The US had a civil war that destroyed slavery. In the end, whatever path the Iraqis choose, we should remember that they have a much longer and deeper historical experience with civilization than white America, despite the "white man's burden" delusions of the later. With white America's record around the world, they should be the last ones telling the Iraqis how to rebuild their country!

The betrayal of the Kurds is already in process. The US is working to stifle Kurdish independence, and even talking about disarming Kurdish fighters, because it doesn't want to piss off Turkey. Turkey, which waged a brutal scorched earth campaign against the Kurdish people, is held up by the US as some sort of model state in the region. Kinda similar to the close relationship with the cheap-gangster Saddam that the US had back in the 80s.

I don't think support for withdrawal is limited to the Sunnis. A poll commissioned by the British military in Iraq, and released last month, reported that the great majority (something like 80 percent) opposed the presence of US/UK troops. Voting in the election shouldn't be interpreted as support for the occupation -- many Shia voted for pro-Iranian parties and Iyad Allawi, the former Ba'athist and US-favored candidate, lost.

[snailpoo]

:biggrin:

I can. Can you?

"- the caustic properties"

MEANING THE AGENTS WHICH IRRITATE, BLISTER & BURN - SEE GLOBALSECURITY.ORG FOR FULL LIST OF EFFECTS

Finally, after 2 days, this is your first new idea. See? I told you actually readign text would improve your arguments.



Now, what's the definition of "caustic properties" under the CWC?

Oh right. You haven't read that. Let me clue you in: there isn't one.

So what could Kaiser mean by "caustic properties?" Well, common sense would point you to the definition of "chemical weapon" that is using under the CWC, and any warmbodied literate would read the definition of "chemical weapon." Huh. It refers to "toxic properties."

Does this make sense? Well, if you head back to grade school, you'd remember that when a noun is set off by commas from the sentence after another noun, the former is describing the latter. "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon." Caustic properties is describing toxic properties.

Notice the setoff? It's not toxic properites AND caustic properties. It's just toxic properties. Look at the end of the quote: "Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." Where's "caustic properties?" Nowhere.



Now why does this make sense? Well, without delving into your CCCW confusion, and how you would classify gasoline as a chemical weapon, and how you'd screw up the regulatory regime for weapons, the easy answer is that if you read the CWC, it doesn't define caustic properties at all. Did you notice how it's missing when Kaiser returns to his statutory definition of what the CWC covers... guess what? You lose.



This is a marked improvement for you, however, and I must commend you on finally attempting to actually read what you're talking about. Now, please click the link I provided to the CWC and try to read that... since that is the heart of what you claim to be talking about.







However, should you fail to read the CWC, here's a better way for you to visualize things. Chemical weapons are weapons so bad because they indiscriminately kill in horrific ways. Does WP meet that criteria? If you fire a WP shell into a building, do you wipe out every living being in a five block radius? WP has been weaponized since the 1800s. The CWC was adopted in 1997. Why does the CWC not list WP as one of the substances it controls under the Schedules? This isn't a loophole or a technicality you're stumbling over. This is the very defintion of a chemical weapon that you've screwed up conceptually.

And, since you finally came up with a new thought for the first time in two days, I'm going to hope you've broken free from your mindless repetition of Kaiser's quote and are finally able to use your mind beyond copying and pasting. Therefore, I'm going to ask this question again, the same question I asked you yesterday: under your definition of "toxic properties" how is gasoline not a chemical weapon?

[hooligan]

:biggrin:

Finally, after 2 days, this is your first new idea. See? I told you actually readign text would improve your arguments.

Now, what's the definition of "caustic properties" under the CWC?

Oh right. You haven't read that. Let me clue you in: there isn't one.

So what could Kaiser mean by "caustic properties?" Well, common sense would point you to the definition of "chemical weapon" that is using under the CWC, and any warmbodied literate would read the definition of "chemical weapon." Huh. It refers to "toxic properties."

Does this make sense? Well, if you head back to grade school, you'd remember that when a noun is set off by commas from the sentence after another noun, the former is describing the latter. "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon." Caustic properties is describing toxic properties.

Notice the setoff? It's not toxic properites AND caustic properties. It's just toxic properties. Look at the end of the quote: "Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." Where's "caustic properties?" Nowhere.

Now why does this make sense? Well, without delving into your CCCW confusion, and how you would classify gasoline as a chemical weapon, and how you'd screw up the regulatory regime for weapons, the easy answer is that if you read the CWC, it doesn't define caustic properties at all. Did you notice how it's missing when Kaiser returns to his statutory definition of what the CWC covers... guess what? You lose.

This is a marked improvement for you, however, and I must commend you on finally attempting to actually read what you're talking about. Now, please click the link I provided to the CWC and try to read that... since that is the heart of what you claim to be talking about.

However, should you fail to read the CWC, here's a better way for you to visualize things. Chemical weapons are weapons so bad because they indiscriminately kill in horrific ways. Does WP meet that criteria? If you fire a WP shell into a building, do you wipe out every living being in a five block radius? WP has been weaponized since the 1800s. The CWC was adopted in 1997. Why does the CWC not list WP as one of the substances it controls under the Schedules? This isn't a loophole or a technicality you're stumbling over. This is the very defintion of a chemical weapon that you've screwed up conceptually.

And, since you finally came up with a new thought for the first time in two days, I'm going to hope you've broken free from your mindless repetition of Kaiser's quote and are finally able to use your mind beyond copying and pasting. Therefore, I'm going to ask this question again, the same question I asked you yesterday: under your definition of "toxic properties" how is gasoline not a chemical weapon?

On the other hand, your explanation is pretty pointless as well, "horrific way"? I think your argument or at least your argument on the definition of chemical weapons as it so pertains to this treaty is self-defeating. WP was used as a weapon, it is acknowledged as a poison. I certainly hope you don't die from being burned by WP nor anyone else. Dying from burns that can't be stopped seems pretty horrific. Breathing it in and having it burn skin and other tissue seems pretty horrific. WP was used for its chemical properties as a weapon.

What's the point of harping it to death? It won't matter either way what you think of the definition nor these treaties. Too bad the rest of the world can't understand the flexibility of definitions as well as you can. Winning this argument is like winning a battle in a larger war. Whether you like to admit it or not, this isn't helping the situation in Iraq. Nor saying that we have used it, or are trying to cover it up, or defining WP as not a chemical weapon is going to change the minds of people in Iraq or the insurrgents fighting against our soldiers. Like others have pointed out, the definition of chemical weapon or incendiary weapon does not change the fact it was used as a weapon. Against an area that was filled with Iraqi citizens.

Too bad you lose.

[Martino]

Finally, after 2 days, this is your first new idea. See? I told you actually readign text would improve your arguments.

Don't be a dope. This is the same quote I have refered to since message 14. How is it a 'new argument'?

You choose to overlook all the definitions I've posted, constantly dismiss CWC even though it is the CWC's governing body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which everyone has referred to for the definition of what is or isn't a legal use of WP.

Face up to it. Your only defence of the use of white phosphorus is some notion that the articles of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a treaty which the US didn't even sign , and which no one but you even mentions, lets them off the hook.

Not good enough. Not good enough at all.

[ahsingjai]

Bush was right about WMDs in Iraq.

Just that, We're the ones using them. lol

[haplesshobo]

From your lack of usage of the primary source legal documents, and from your clumsy use of defined terms, and from your trouble understanding Kaiser's very legalese quote, it's painfully obvious that you're not used to dealing with legal intricacies, so here's a big hint to interpreting his legalese:


Okay, so if we're going to ignore the primary documents, let's look at the secondary source, the BBC, which started this thread.

Let's look at how the BBC tries to explain white phosphorous:

It calls white phosphorous a incindeary device.

And, it describes how incindeary device falls under Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and what is and is not acceptable under the Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons.

Now, if the BBC really did think white phosphorous was a chemical weapon, then why wouldn't it call it a chemical weapon instead of a incindeary device, hmm?

And, if white phosphorous was being used as a chemical weapon in this situation, then why wouldn't the BBC try to explain what was acceptable or unacceptable under Convention on Chemical Weapons, hmmm?

[Martino]

Okay, so if we're going to ignore the primary documents, let's look at the secondary source, the BBC, which started this thread.

Let's look at how the BBC tries to explain white phosphorous:

It calls white phosphorous a incindeary device.

And, it describes how incindeary device falls under Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and what is and is not acceptable under the Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons.

Now, if the BBC really did think white phosphorous was a chemical weapon, then why wouldn't it call it a chemical weapon instead of a incindeary device, hmm?

And, if white phosphorous was being used as a chemical weapon in this situation, then why wouldn't the BBC try to explain what was acceptable or unacceptable under Convention on Chemical Weapons, hmmm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

"The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party. "

[snailpoo]

Don't be a dope. This is the same quote I have refered to since message 14. How is it a 'new argument'?

You choose to overlook all the definitions I've posted, constantly dismiss CWC even though it is the CWC's governing body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which everyone has referred to for the definition of what is or isn't a legal use of WP.

Face up to it. Your only defence of the use of white phosphorus is some notion that the articles of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a treaty which the US didn't even sign , and which no one but you even mentions, lets them off the hook.

Not good enough. Not good enough at all.


Are you that dense?

Your entire point thus far has been focused upon "the toxic properties" of Kaiser's quote. After two days where it's clear that rapid oxidation is NOT a toxic property, you're now turning to "caustic properties" to include burning.

IF you actually read the source document, "caustic propteries" isn't defined, and if you remember basic English sentence structure, "casutic properties" describes "toxic propteries" in the quote, which leaves you back to nothing more than your original argument.

Are you intelligent enough to understand that legal definitions only have the definitions given to them in the source documents? Therefore, when you refuse to read the source documents, you have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue what those terms mean.



And the ONLY reason why CCCW is brought up here, is because YOU are the one who has the CWC and the CCCW confused. Every single time you mention the ban of using WP in civilian areas, that would be the CCCW, NOT the CWC, which, as you correctly point out, the US isn't a party to.


Again, read the documents so you don't appear to be the class idiot who's bullshitting an answer because he didn't do his homework.

Better yet, if you really want to prove me wrong, there is a very,very easy way.

Answer these three questions, and I'll admit you're right.

1. There is a list of chemicals covered by the CWC in three schedules to the CWC. Find WP in any of those schedules.

2. Tell me how your definition of "chemical weapons" doesn't include gasoline.

3. Tell me how your definition of "chemical weapons" doesn't subsume the definition of "incendiary weapon" under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

It's that simple.

On the other hand, your explanation is pretty pointless as well, "horrific way"? I think your argument or at least your argument on the definition of chemical weapons as it so pertains to this treaty is self-defeating. WP was used as a weapon, it is acknowledged as a poison. I certainly hope you don't die from being burned by WP nor anyone else. Dying from burns that can't be stopped seems pretty horrific. Breathing it in and having it burn skin and other tissue seems pretty horrific. WP was used for its chemical properties as a weapon.


No, the point I'm making is that you can't fly off the handle and just assume the worse about the United States simply becuase the world band wagon has hyped up its spin machine.

When you compare WP to any other explosive round, a sabot round, for example, whats the difference? WP burns the target. Sabot rounds produce thousands of degrees of heat. It's designed to melt tanks. What about RPGs? Are they any less lethal? If you're caught within the blast radius of any of those weapons, are you any less dead? All the militaries of the world use sabot rounds and rpgs. The insurgents use them. Under your expanded definition of "chemcial properties," are any of these weapons not chemical based?

The reason why terms are important is that you have this spin machine out of control with it's anti-Americanism. Do you realize how far you're stretching the word "chemcial" just so you can sensationalize the accusation against the US? The next time some rioter throws a molotov cocktail, are you going to call that a chemical weapon too? Are you going to sensationalize gasoline as well? Are you going to sensationalize mortars? Are you going to sensationalize RPGs? You're basically looking for an excuse to label weapons chemcial.



Just because the US is wrong for invading, doesn't make it automatically guilty of everything else under the sun.

As for the Kurds, they have gained nothing from the invasion. Every nation still considers them 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Everybody is still hostile to them. Their only hope is to have an independent nation.

Smorgas, Chad, Arex,

It seems you've forgotten the initial reaction to the invasion.

We were welcomed. We were greeted as liberators by the Kurds and the Shiite majority. That welcome faded when the US failed to prevent looters and restore water and electricity. It was only after Abu Graib that opinion soured and we were seen as occupiers.

The problem is this: the Kurds and the Shiites support the elected government. The Sunni insurgents are attacking that government as collaboraters. Do you allow the minority insurgents to dictate the future for the majority?

The point I'm getting from the three of you is that if the people see us as occupiers, we have no business being there. Yet, when we arrived we were liberators by people outside of the Sunni Triangle. Is our status solely based upon public opinion? And is our status solely regional as well? Keep in mind, we are STILL seen as liberators in northern Iraq today.

The problem with this is real world implementation. How do you ever liberate a state? When the US retook France, there were French collaborators who supported the Nazis. Were we liberators for some parts of the country, but occupiers of others?

You say back off and let them sort it out. Pretend you become the president tomorrow. How do you justify the coming slaughter of civilians? When they blame you for abandoning them, are you just going to pass that blame on to Bush for invasion, and duck responsibility for YOUR decision to withdraw? ...and you know that slaughter is coming if you leave.

[Martino]

Are you that dense?

No. Are you?

Your entire point thus far has been focused upon "the toxic properties" of Kaiser's quote. After two days where it's clear that rapid oxidation is NOT a toxic property, you're now turning to "caustic properties" to include burning.

Oh, you are dense. I've posted multiple sources. This is like that "new" argument I came up with, huh?

IF you actually read the source document, "caustic propteries" isn't defined, and if you remember basic English sentence structure, "casutic properties"

Looks like the only way you can get it would be if you experienced WP yourself. It chemically reacts, it burns, if you inhale it, it burns you to death from the inside out. Read back on what the smoke of WP is and does. Acid. Read back on what just a particle of WP does if it touches your skin or is inhaled. Burning to the bone. Particles continue to burn and remain dangerous for long periods of time.

describes "toxic propteries" in the quote, which leaves you back to nothing more than your original argument.

What argument? I'm quoting the Convention and I'm quoting globalsecurity.org on WP's properties. You are still dancing around which Convention applies.

And the ONLY reason why CCCW is brought up here, is because YOU are the one who has the CWC and the CCCW confused. Every single time you mention the ban of using WP in civilian areas, that would be the CCCW, NOT the CWC, which, as you correctly point out, the US isn't a party to.

The only reason I refer to CWC is because all the news sources refer to the CWC. The news sources are interviewing and quoting Kaiser. The CCCW is irrelevant. Why? Because the US hasn't signed up to it.

Again, read the documents so you don't appear to be the class idiot who's bullshitting an answer because he didn't do his homework.

I'd sooner be mistaken for an idiot than for a hawk or a Fascist.

Better yet, if you really want to prove me wrong, there is a very,very easy way.

Answer these three questions, and I'll admit you're right.

1. There is a list of chemicals covered by the CWC in three schedules to the CWC. Find WP in any of those schedules.

The quote that allows WP to be included is already on this thread.

2. Tell me how your definition of "chemical weapons" doesn't include gasoline.

Again, no one is talking about gasoline except you. How is gasoline comparable to white phosphorus - has someone accused the US of doing this? Has the US used gasoline on Iraqi civillians? Does gasoline produce burning clouds that kill? Is a particle of gasoline dangerous, if not lethal to touch long after its use? How long does gasoline burn for compared to WP? If you are using gasoline as a weapon against civillians, how is that justified?

Tell me how you would justify the use of gasoline as a weapon in a civillian zone anyway?

3. Tell me how your definition of "chemical weapons" doesn't subsume the definition of "incendiary weapon" under the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons.

Again, I have already posted the quote that demonstrates WP can be regarded as a chemical weapon under the CWC. And again I remind you that the US isn't a signatory to the CCCW. It's irrelevant.

LATE EDIT: You want to shake hands and call a draw? We're both saying the same things over and over. Let's see where the media or UN goes with this instead.

[Chad]

Smorgas, Chad, Arex,

It seems you've forgotten the initial reaction to the invasion.

We were welcomed. We were greeted as liberators by the Kurds and the Shiite majority. That welcome faded when the US failed to prevent looters and restore water and electricity. It was only after Abu Graib that opinion soured and we were seen as occupiers.

The problem is this: the Kurds and the Shiites support the elected government. The Sunni insurgents are attacking that government as collaboraters. Do you allow the minority insurgents to dictate the future for the majority?

The point I'm getting from the three of you is that if the people see us as occupiers, we have no business being there. Yet, when we arrived we were liberators by people outside of the Sunni Triangle. Is our status solely based upon public opinion? And is our status solely regional as well? Keep in mind, we are STILL seen as liberators in northern Iraq today.

The problem with this is real world implementation. How do you ever liberate a state? When the US retook France, there were French collaborators who supported the Nazis. Were we liberators for some parts of the country, but occupiers of others?

You say back off and let them sort it out. Pretend you become the president tomorrow. How do you justify the coming slaughter of civilians? When they blame you for abandoning them, are you just going to pass that blame on to Bush for invasion, and duck responsibility for YOUR decision to withdraw? ...and you know that slaughter is coming if you leave.
There were many people who applauded the toppling of Saddam because he had many, many enemies. As does just about everybody in the region even vaguely involved in politics. Kill any leader in the Middle East and you'll have a group of people applauding you and another group wanting revenge. You might make some people happy temporarily and they'll throw a little parade for you, and then you're tangled up in their mess. Who else was happy to see Saddam go? Iran. Saddam was the worst enemy of the only Shi'a nation. It was they who gave false intelligence about mass destruction weapons in order to encourage the invasion.
It's very hypothetical what would happen after a pullout. Naturally the administration would predict the worst since they oppose a pullout. Others would predict the best. Both are probably wrong.

[snailpoo]

Martino,

You again highlight your inadequacies when arguing from documents you've never read:

If you say this:
The CCCW is irrelevant. Why? Because the US hasn't signed up to it.

then you have no business saying this:
Tell me how you would justify the use of gasoline as a weapon in a civillian zone anyway?
Because the whole concept of civilian zone ISN'T IN THE CWC.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but when you refuse to read the documents, you make an idiot out of yourself when to try to argue from them.


And even when you look at gasoline, isn't it toxic? Exposure to gasoline has a host of toxic effects on the body. Breathing burning gasoline vapors can cause death. Burning gasoline is difficult to extinguish. How is this different from WP under your definition of a chemical weapon? I'm glad you've finally decided to address this gaping flaw in your use of definitions, but its two days late and way short.



And, you're right, you've done nothing in this thread but hinge your entire argument on Kaiser's quote this entire time.

And so I'll leave you with this: The quote only says what the legal definition of the words in the quote means. You're not able to say that the quote by Kasier indicates that the OPCW considers WP under the jurisdiction of the CWC until AFTER you understand the meanings of the terms used both in the quote and in the CWC. Can you not see your problem? You're trying to use the quote to say the OPCW disagrees with my interpretation of the definition of the terms. Your problem is that the OPCW says the exact same thing and uses the exact same terms as the CWC. It doesn't support you. It doesn't make an affirmate statement. It just reproduces part of the defintion. Therefore, until you finally read the source documents to figure out what the legal definitions are, you have no business discussing the quote, let alone applying it.

The definition of "chemical weapon" of "toxic properties" is clearly delineated in the CWC. That definition even makes specific references to the substances listed in the schedules. Until you finally read that definition, you have no clue what that quote actually means.

Repeating that quote over and over again, as you have done, doesn't change your ignorance.


Have a good weekend.

[smorgasbord]

We were welcomed. We were greeted as liberators by the Kurds and the Shiite majority. That welcome faded when the US failed to prevent looters and restore water and electricity. It was only after Abu Graib that opinion soured and we were seen as occupiers.
Abu Ghraib was important, but I don't think it was only cause of the turn against the occupation. Another event was Bremer's announcement that the US would keep 14 permanent military bases in Iraq regardless of Iraqi opinion, the shutting down of al-Sadr's newspaper after it criticized Bremer's statement, and the killing of 20 unarmed demonstrators protesting the newspaper shut-down.

Public opinion soured ultimately because the real motives of the occupation were exposed: to establish a permanent US presence in Iraq for controlling the key oil-producing region in the world. Since that's been the goal of the US all along, the initial welcome/relief isn't very relevant. As the Bushies explained in one of their policy papers (still available on the PNAC website), "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The problem is this: the Kurds and the Shiites support the elected government. The Sunni insurgents are attacking that government as collaboraters. Do you allow the minority insurgents to dictate the future for the majority?
As that poll commissioned by the British military showed, the majority opposes the presence of US/UK troops, regardless of what they think of the elected government. The January elections took place against the wishes of the US authorities anyway, not because of US commitment to democracy. Bremer was pushing for a caucus-type set-up that would be easier to manipulate, not the one-person, one-vote arrangement demanded by Sistani. The Bush admin milked it for all of its PR value here in the states though.

Once you take the Sadrists into account (who are based in a working-class section of Baghdad containing 20% of the Shia population), the picture becomes a lot more complicated than three opposed blocks of Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. If opposition to the occupation were limited to Sunnis, it would be a minority sentiment, not 82 percent!

The point I'm getting from the three of you is that if the people see us as occupiers, we have no business being there. Yet, when we arrived we were liberators by people outside of the Sunni Triangle. Is our status solely based upon public opinion? And is our status solely regional as well? Keep in mind, we are STILL seen as liberators in northern Iraq today.
It's based on public opinion and the actual objectives of the US government, laid out in their own words and policy statements. Regardless of how the US is seen in northern Iraq, the US will never allow an independent Kurdistan. Not only would it invite a Turkish invasion, breaking up Iraq into three sections would tie southern Iraq to Iran. Kurdish leaders are making a Faustian bargain with the occupiers.

You say back off and let them sort it out. Pretend you become the president tomorrow. How do you justify the coming slaughter of civilians? When they blame you for abandoning them, are you just going to pass that blame on to Bush for invasion, and duck responsibility for YOUR decision to withdraw? ...and you know that slaughter is coming if you leave.
There are a lot of indictations that there won't be a mass slaughter any worse than what's already going on in the event of a US withdrawal. The Iraqis aren't children who need the benevolent tutelage of the white American colonizer. Iraq used to have the best education and healthcare systems in the entire Middle East. Institutions for self-government have already been organized in parts of the country outside US control. Check out the article "The Taming of Sadr City" in Asia Times.

The occupation is the main cause of violence in Iraq, because it turns nervous, heavily-armed American youth on the Iraqi population, splits Iraqi society into collaborators and resistance, and makes the country a magnet for foreign jihadists.

[Martino]

Because the whole concept of civilian zone ISN'T IN THE CWC.


Yes it IS.

Kaiser was asked if under what circumstances would the use of white phosphorus be considered a chemical weapon.

If troops, of whatever nation, were to use WP for its proscribed battlefield purposes - to generate cover, and not to be used as a weapon, then it's use was legal.

Should, as US forces claim to have done, WP be used against people, then that is illegal.

Read the quote:

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The quote is talking about white phosphorus SPECIFICALLY. Kaiser was specifying under what conditions white phosphorus might be regarded as a chemical weapon. Since the story, and the US's admissions, was that WP was used in Falluja, them Kaiser was saying that WP was being applied as a chemical weapon.

You're not able to say that the quote by Kasier indicates that the OPCW considers WP under the jurisdiction of the CWC until AFTER you understand the meanings of the terms used both in the quote and in the CWC.

You're talking thru your arse. The quote tacitly specifies under what conditions is and isn't a chemical weapon. It's use during the seige of Falluja clearly says it is.

[Bhodi_Li]

Military cover-ups are bad. No question about that. Armchair generals that second guess tactical/operational decisions without operational experience can be very frustrating as well.

I was operating in Mosul during last year's operations in Fallujah. As I recall, the local population was given plenty of time to evacuate the area, which was one of the reasons that the insurgents were able to re-locate to areas like Mosul and Tall'Afar (which we in the northern Iraq area were very thankful for <sarc>).The fact that there were still locals in the town once kinetic operations were initiated was to a certain extent unavoidable.

What isn't depicted in a lot of these articles is the sheer intensity of urban combat. If you've experienced it, then you will understand the chaos and difficulty of the situation. If you haven't then you must discard your pre-conceived notions of civilized warfare and understand what urban warfare is truly like.

Fallujah was a joint operation with the Iraqi National Guard (ING). There was an extremely large number of ING that either fled or actually turned on the US during the fight. We would have this happen to us on more than one occassion. As ground forces were manuevering forward attempting to secure positions they were taking fire from all directions. In the last year the three of the hottest spots in the country have been Sadr City, Fallujah and Tal'Afar. Reports from all three detail the intensity of the situation.

This brings us to the use of WP, or any other incendiary weapon that is used. WP is a brutal weapon that causes tremendous damage. In fact, it's so dangerous that if the average soldier uses a WP grenande, there is a good chance that he will be injured in the blast. Our brigade didn't use it, but we did have to use assets like the Spectre gunships and other less precise weapons. The difference between fighting off an ambush on your convoy and fighting in a total warfare urban environment is the level of situational control that you can apply through conventional means. In Fallujah, just like for us in Tall'Afar, that control is temporarily minimalized. If I were the ground commander would I rule out WP as an option? Absolutely not. Would I use it only as a last resort? Without question. What I haven't seen in this thread, possibly because I got lost in the seven pages of dialouge written in just a few days, are the exact details of it's use. Was it limited use or more extensively applied? What were the CA/IO consequences of it's use on the local population both immediately following, and over the course of 6 months? Was the ROE revised after this incident? These are the questions that a person needs to be know in order to intelligently debate both the tactical use of WP as well as the overall operational value.

Lastly, it should be noted, that insurgents used an extensive, although somewhat ineffective, array of incendiary IED's on US forces as well. From an Information Operational perspective, that's significant.

[haplesshobo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

"The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party. "

And, what does this prove? That quote is describing why using WP was so controversial, where some critics are claiming that its a chemical weapon and would thus fall under the CWC. There's a difference between an article covering a hate march where white supremacists call blacks inferior, and the article stating as a fact that blacks are inferior. Just because the article is covering the former does not make the latter true.

What is the title of the BBC's interview with the US soldier, hmm?
US uses 'incindeary arms' in Iraq

And, when the BBC explains what white phosphorous is to the reader, the BBC describes white phosphorous as an incindeary device and how such devices fall under the CWCC. Again, if the BBC really thinks white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, why wouldn't it simply describe it as a chemical weapon instead of an incindeary device?

Snailpoo has pasted all the primary documents, but you've insisted on relying on the interpretations of secondary documents. But, even some of these secondary documents like the BBC are not willing to call WP a chemical weapon the way it was used.

[Martino]

And, what does this prove? That quote is describing why using WP was so controversial, where some critics are claiming that its a chemical weapon and would thus fall under the CWC. There's a difference between an article covering a hate march where white supremacists call blacks inferior, and the article stating as a fact that blacks are inferior. Just because the article is covering the former does not make the latter true.

What is the title of the BBC's interview with the US soldier, hmm?
US uses 'incindeary arms' in Iraq

And, when the BBC explains what white phosphorous is to the reader, the BBC describes white phosphorous as an incindeary device and how such devices fall under the CWCC. Again, if the BBC really thinks white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, why wouldn't it simply describe it as a chemical weapon instead of an incindeary device?

Snailpoo has pasted all the primary documents, but you've insisted on relying on the interpretations of secondary documents. But, even some of these secondary documents like the BBC are not willing to call WP a chemical weapon the way it was used.

It proves that, as usual, when it comes to quotes you are highly selective and more than a little myopic - for example, making accusations you can never back up, then running away from those threads.

And the crack There's a difference between an article covering a hate march where white supremacists call blacks inferior, and the article stating as a fact that blacks are inferior. is the kind of cheap shot I expect from you. Sure, compare the free press and the need for accountability from the government to racism, just shows you how small your mind is.

The BBC acknowledges in the quote that WP is regarded by many as a chemical weapon, just as the Kaiser quote acknowledges that WP is only regarded as not being a chemical weapon when used for its prescribed legal applications.

Since the whole story is about WP being used in a poipulated city, WP falls into the category of it being used as a chemical weapon.

[Faithless]

The idiotic thing is, when the story was first carried last year, the US denied it. It is only admitting it now after a magazine published by and for the US Army, called Field Artillery, published an article discussing the use of white phospherus in Iraq.
...
Nasty.
They had to get their mis-truthes straight. :frown:

[snailpoo]

You're talking thru your arse. The quote tacitly specifies under what conditions is and isn't a chemical weapon. It's use during the seige of Falluja clearly says it is.

I guess you really are too stupid to realize the legal definitions only have the meanings given to them in the legal documents where they are defined.

Until you finally read and apply the definition, you have NO CLUE what that quote is talking about.



Speaking of talking out of your ass:


Because the whole concept of civilian zone ISN'T IN THE CWC.

Yes it IS.

If you say it is, find it. Quote that particular provision in the CWC, and link it. Until you do, your ass remains the most vocal part of your bullshitting.

This is simple proof that you've never read the documents, that you have no idea what the definitions means, that you have no idea which convention covers what weapon.

Forget trying to apply the definition of "chemical weapon." If you can't even find the rules governing "chemical weapons" why are you even bothering trying to classify them in the first place?

End of story.




I was operating in Mosul during last year's operations in Fallujah. As I recall, the local population was given plenty of time to evacuate the area, which was one of the reasons that the insurgents were able to re-locate to areas like Mosul and Tall'Afar (which we in the northern Iraq area were very thankful for <sarc>).The fact that there were still locals in the town once kinetic operations were initiated was to a certain extent unavoidable.

Bhodi,

Real world facts and real world experience will mean next to nothing when you attempt to enlighten rabid anti-war bandwagoners like Martino.

If Martino can willfully misread quotes and refuse to read basic documents that are accessable from the comfort of his computer, you're going to have a much tougher time convincing him of real world facts in such a far off place.

Lastly, it should be noted, that insurgents used an extensive, although somewhat ineffective, array of incendiary IED's on US forces as well. From an Information Operational perspective, that's significant.

This argument is going to fall on deaf ears.

Double standards and hypocrisy means next to nothing to people like Martino with mindless anti-American axe to grind.


Given your experience, your posts should be given the heaviest weight in this discussion. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will be the case.

Good luck.

[Faithless]

Tim Collins trained troops to fight with white phosphorus (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/nphos20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/20/ixportal.html)

By Sean Rayment Defence Correspondent * (Filed: 20/11/2005)

Col Tim Collins, the controversial Iraq war commander, trained his soldiers to use white phosphorus, which burns through flesh to the bone, in combat against enemy troops.

The admission by the former Special Air Service officer, revealed in his autobiography Rules of Engagement, contradicts claims by the Ministry of Defence that the chemical was only ever used to create a smokescreen.

British troops also used white phosphorus to kill Argentinian troops during the Falklands conflict.

In his book, Col Collins describes how he trained 1bn Royal Irish Regiment for an attack codenamed Operation Fury planned for April 2003.

The colonel, who left the Army last year, said that he "directed" the men to "perfect" house-to-house fighting skills in preparation for the battle.

Discussing the weapons to be used in the operation in the Basra area, he wrote: "The star of the show was the new grenade which had only been on issue since the previous summer. It absolutely trashed the inside of the room it was put into.

"I directed the men to use them where possible with white phosphorus, as the noxious smoke and heat had the effect of drawing out any enemy from cover, while the fragmentation grenade would shred them."

Col Collins' tactics mirror the United States army "shake and bake" technique which involves forcing troops out of cover with white phosphorus and then killing them with artillery rounds.

The furore surrounding the weapon emerged last week after Lt Col Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, used almost identical phraseology to Col Collins, when he confirmed that "shake and bake" was a recognised American tactic.

In an interview with the BBC, Col Venable said: "When you have enemy forces in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, one technique is to fire white phosphorus into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke will drive them out so that you can kill them with high explosives."

He confirmed: "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."

White phosphorus has been used by the British Army for decades to create instantaneous smokescreens during battle. In contact with skin, however, it burns to the bone and the gas it produces, phosphorus pentoxide, is poisonous.

Article two of Protocol Three of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of the weapon against civilians and also military targets located within civilian areas. Although the US is not a signatory of the convention, Britain is.

But there is now increasing debate as to whether the use of the weapon should instead fall under the United Nations Convention on Chemical Weapons.

Last week John Reid, the Defence Secretary, maintained the British troops had only ever used white phosphorus as a battlefield smokescreen. His department continued to stress that troops had never used it as "an incendiary weapon, against either civilians or even enemy combatants".

Although Operation Fury was cancelled, it remains unclear whether British troops went on to use white phosphorus against Iraqi forces, putting Col Collins' style of attack into action.

Prof Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's peace studies department, said he believed that most soldiers would use all weapons at their disposal.

He said: "There is a presumption among certain members of the population that wars are clean. They are not."Pentagon spokesman

[Martino]

If you say it is, find it. Quote that particular provision in the CWC, and link it. Until you do, your ass remains the most vocal part of your bullshitting.

What happened to that razor sharp legal mind of yours? It is tacit throughout the Convention, because - get this - that is what the Convention is all about. An absolute ban on the use of chemical weapons. It's right there, on their homepage.

What, you think there was going to be a clause where it says you can't use CW here, here or here, but you can use them here and here?

What happened to your firm grasp of "legalese"?

But Article VII, the Convention does say:

Each State Party, during the implementation of its obligations under this Convention, shall assign the highest priority to ensuring the safety of people and to protecting the environment, and shall cooperate as appropriate with other States Parties in this regard.

That is based on the general assumption that a country had admitted owning chemical weapons because, you know, they're illegal. It's the whole purpose of the Convention.

I suppose you also think there is also a clause in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that says "and, oh, don't drop nuclear bombs on cities."?

Real world facts and real world experience will mean next to nothing when you attempt to enlighten rabid anti-war bandwagoners like Martino.

If Martino can willfully misread quotes and refuse to read basic documents that are accessable from the comfort of his computer, you're going to have a much tougher time convincing him of real world facts in such a far off place.

Double standards and hypocrisy means next to nothing to people like Martino with mindless anti-American axe to grind.


It's lamentable that the troops on the ground have to put up with spin doctors like you. Note, it wasn't the troops in Iraq who have lied through their teeth to the voters for a whole year; and I'm not too surprised you haven't once stopped to ask yourself why Washington thought it necessary to lie.

Yup, I've been against this war since before it started, but no anti-war protester is against the men and women out there doing a job - it's the manipulative politicians who are the target of protest and indignation.

So per-leeze spare me the anti-American crap. It's juvenile. Next you'll be starting an anti-anti-America thread ...

[Faithless]

Do we wait for the report on this issue from the Iraqi Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman and her team? (Uthman is a Kurd.)

Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons (http://www.almendhar.com/english_7736/news.aspx)

17/11/2005 * BBC

Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says it will be some time before the human rights team reports back.
...

[haplesshobo]

And the crack is the kind of cheap shot I expect from you. Sure, compare the free press and the need for accountability from the government to racism, just shows you how small your mind is.

The BBC acknowledges in the quote that WP is regarded by many as a chemical weapon, just as the Kaiser quote acknowledges that WP is only regarded as not being a chemical weapon when used for its prescribed legal applications.

Since the whole story is about WP being used in a poipulated city, WP falls into the category of it being used as a chemical weapon.

No, you're again confusing the CCWC and the CWC, and applying the standards for the CWC onto the CCWC. Just because something is used in a populated city does not therefore make it fall into the category of chemical weapons. I think that's the crux of why you're confusing the issue.

All you've shown are two quotes:
The quote by Kaiser actually does nothing for your assertion. Reread snailpoo's earlier posts to understand why, or read the primary documentation he's posted.

The next quote by the BBC says that the useage of WP is controversial, with many critics calling it a chemical weapon.

But, you do realize that there is a distinct difference between a news source covering a controversial topic, and with that news source saying that those criticisms are true, don't you? Hmmm?

Right now, there are a lot of articles in american papers about how there are many critics who call evolution wrong, and that those critics want the theory of evolution as taught in high school to be replaced by intelligent design or creationism. Just because there are criticisms, doesn't make that criticism true. Can your mind comprehend that concept?

So, all you're left with is a BBC article that says that there is controversy around using WP, just like there are articles that says that there is controversy over teaching evolution in high schools. What does that prove?

And, when you look at all the other information about WP in the BBC articles, WP is described as an incindeary device and how those are covered by the CCWC. If the BBC really does think that WP is a chemcial weapon, then why would it describe it as a incindeary device and how that falls under the CCWC in several different spots. Why in the piece that Chottamatte just linked would the BBC article call WP 'not illegal and it is not classified as a chemical weapon'? Notice that its not a partisan like the US military or a professor of peace studies arguing it one way or the other, but that a supposedly objective reporter from the BBC stated that WP is not classified as a chemical weapon.

[Martino]

Do we wait for the report on this issue from the Iraqi Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman and her team? (Uthman is a Kurd.)

Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons (http://www.almendhar.com/english_7736/news.aspx)

I did offer to shake hands, and agree to disagree, but snailpoo declined to accept.

Here are some other perspectives on white phosphorus:

A chemical definition:
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/P-en.htm

"White phosphorus is extremely poisonous and in many cases exposure to it will be fatal ..." Hmm ... toxic, eh?

Another political view: The Times , Britain's leading broadsheet, looks at the British perspective:

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

Britain was drawn into the controversy surrounding America's use of white phosphorus in last year's battle for Fallujah today when the Defence Secretary conceded that British forces had also used the substance during military operations in Iraq.

But John Reid said that the Army had used the incendiary metal only to provide a smokescreen for British troops rather than deploying it as a weapon directly against enemy personnel - as the Pentagon admits to having done in Fallujah.

"I think the Americans have to answer the questions that are put to them on that," Dr Reid told the BBC on a visit to Germany. "I can only speak for the British and we only use it as a smokescreen, to give cover to our troops."

Legally, the difference is a crucial one. Critics say that the American military may have breached international conventions through their use of the substance to flush out insurgents from the rebel stronghold of Fallujah.

A wax-like metal that combusts spontaneously when exposed to oxygen, white phosphorus can burn right through skin to the bone. In Vietnam, where it was regularly used alongside Napalm, it was known as Willie Pete.

Its use in Fallujah was highlighted by a documentary on the Italian state television channel RAI this month which alleged that American use of the weapon had caused injuries and deaths not just to insurgents but to civilians. One former US soldier told RAI that he had seen the "burnt bodies of women and children".

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.

"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.

Although the Pentagon spokesman described it as an "incendiary weapon", white phosphorus has clear chemical effects on its human targets - melting away the skin of its victims and burning quickly into the tissue, especially on exposed parts of the body like the face and hands.

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.

But an article in an internal US Army magazine provided incontrovertible evidence that such bombs were used against human targets in Fallujah and the Pentagon appears to have changed its mind on the precise legal status of the substance.

[snailpoo]

Martino,

You can quote as many articles as you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

There are plenty of articles on both sides of the issue, and when faced with the two vying interpretations of legal definitions, the intelligent thing to do would have been to examine the document at the heart of the matter which sets forth those legal definitions. Unfortunately for you and for this thread, the intelligent thing to do escapes your abilities.

You offered to shake hands and agree to disagree while firing a parting shot. Some offer.

My offer was for you to actually read the documents so you could have a clue what you were talking about. Has it ever wormed its way through your stubborn closed mindedness that when someone is actually daring you to read the actual document discussed, that you're on the losing side of the argument?

And since I do believe in welfare, here's another clue. When I'm the one asking you to read the words actually written in the Convention, and when you're the one arguing from articles you googled and selected purely on the basis that they support your particular view... take a wild ass guess who's guilty of spin?


There is nothing further to discuss between you and me. Until you finally read the actual documents to comprehend the defintions of the terms you are trying to use, there's no point in me intelligently discuss this matter with you. If you insist on willful ignorance, that is your perogative.

[hooligan]

Well, I don't think Martino has necessarily said anything wrong. I think, as I do, the definition of chemical weapon is inadequete and you can argue what you'd like about definitions and what not. But as it stands we believe that those weapons that we used in Fallujah were probably unnecessary.

What you didn't quote from Bhodi Li was that he said that he would use these weapons as a last resort. Like I said before and I'll say again, we can disagree on what a "chemical weapon" is (just as you put on varying definitions both official and 'horrific', I'll stick to the scientific documents), but if the use of WP warranted. Only the official reports will tell.

[Martino]

There are plenty of articles on both sides of the issue, and when faced with the two vying interpretations of legal definitions, the intelligent thing to do would have been to examine the document at the heart of the matter which sets forth those legal definitions. Unfortunately for you and for this thread, the intelligent thing to do escapes your abilities.

But that's the funny thing. You keep insisting on refering to a Convention to which the US isn't even signed up to. So what is the point of that? Even if the definition fits, no action would be or could be taken on the US for the illegal use of WP, simply because they are not bound by the CCCW.

The view that the CWC should or does include WP is being debated across a lot of boards, in newspaper articles, in letter pages. People you might call expert witnesses are arguing from both camps, just as we are here.

You talk about me wilfully ignoring points. I have shown that WP is regarded as being toxic; I have posted quotes by an OPCW spokesman and you seem to want to imply he isn't really talking about WP in a Yes Minister kind of way; I have posted references which talk about the toxicity of WP, caustic properties, references as to how it chemically reacts with oxygen, and so on.

There is plenty of scope for WP to finally be acknowledged as a chemical weapon, when directed at people.

And you completely ignore the most compelling piece of evidence of all: the fact that the US tried to cover up the fact that they used it, and DID cover it up for a whole year.

Now why would they do that, unless they themselves acknowledge the fact that WP can be regarded as a chemical weapon?

[snailpoo]

You talk about me wilfully ignoring points. Ihave shown that WP is regarded as being toxic; I have posted quotes by an OPCW spokesman and you seem to want to imply he isn't really talking about WP in a Yes Minister kind of way; I have posted references which talk about the toxicity of WP, caustic properties, references as to how it chemically reacts with oxygen, and so on.
Yes, I know you have mindlessly repeated the same drivel over and over without actually comprehending the actual document you're trying to talk about.

You've willfully ignored that the definition of "chemical weapon" is a weapon must be used for it's toxic qualities, that since phossy jaw and necrosis of the bones is not the toxic quality of the WP which the weapon is used for, and that "caustic properties" means "toxic properties" neither of which include rapid oxidiation, and that you've fail the basics of reading and comprehension with regards to the definition set forth in the CWC, making a massive failure of the rest of your arguments. You've ignored the fact that WP is not listed as a "chemcial weapon" by the CWC.

I've also said it from the beginning that the US should have just disclosed use of WP, and there would have been no row aside from the few sensationalists like you who would bend over backwards to include something as mundane as gasoline as a chemical weapon just for the excuse to jump on the bandwagon.

And you keep accusing me of bringing up the CCCW. Ask yourself: why do I bring up the CCCW? In case you're too ignorant about international law and in case you're incapable of reading a document you're trying to talk about, you can get a clue when I tell you the exact reason why: most of what you are saying comes from the CCCW, not the CWC. My repeated attempts to ask you to prove that you know what you are talking by actually quoting the CWC about have gone unanswered. Again, I ask you, how simple is it to read a few pages of text (the CWC isn't that long as legal documents go), highlight, and copy and paste?

And you can cite the existence of a debate concerning the classification of WP. That's fine. But in this realm on this thread, this debate is over since you fail to comprehend the basic fact that legal terms only have the legal definitions given to them in the legal documents in which they are used. I am sure there are plenty of threads and plenty of debates concering WP where the argument that WP is a chemical weapon is being intelligently advanced on a principled and well reasoned basis. This isn't one of them.

But I'm done. There's nothing here I haven't said from the first post, and nothing you haven't willfully ignored since. And so, I will remind you of this:

Martino,

You can quote as many articles as you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

There are plenty of articles on both sides of the issue, and when faced with the two vying interpretations of legal definitions, the intelligent thing to do would have been to examine the document at the heart of the matter which sets forth those legal definitions. Unfortunately for you and for this thread, the intelligent thing to do escapes your abilities.

You offered to shake hands and agree to disagree while firing a parting shot. Some offer.

My offer was for you to actually read the documents so you could have a clue what you were talking about. Has it ever wormed its way through your stubborn closed mindedness that when someone is actually daring you to read the actual document discussed, that you're on the losing side of the argument?

And since I do believe in welfare, here's another clue. When I'm the one asking you to read the words actually written in the Convention, and when you're the one arguing from articles you googled and selected purely on the basis that they support your particular view... take a wild ass guess who's guilty of spin?


There is nothing further to discuss between you and me. Until you finally read the actual documents to comprehend the defintions of the terms you are trying to use, there's no point in me intelligently discuss this matter with you. If you insist on willful ignorance, that is your perogative.





What you didn't quote from Bhodi Li was that he said that he would use these weapons as a last resort.
To which he also said that none of us understand the situations they faced, meaning if anyone were to judge them guilty, it wouldn't be armchair generals like you and me typing from the safety of their computers.

Only the official reports will tell.
To which I'd ask about your and all the other responses decrying the use of "chemical weapons" and to which I'd question the motives and the bias of someone like Martino blindly hopping on the anti-American bandwagon.

To which I'll ALSO point out that this assumption of justification comes a LONG way from accusing the US of using chemical weapons, since for chemical weapons there is no justification.







And one more thing I forgot to add:

Now why would they do that, unless they themselves acknowledge the fact that WP can be regarded as a chemical weapon?
Reading and comprehension is a good thing:

"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.

Hrm... so where could you have gotten the drivel from your first quote from?

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.

Now, I'm not sure which version of your reality you might be reading this from, but how does WP burster bombs of the third quote automatically become classification as a "chemical weapon" in the first?

Not that I really care for your answer as I'm much less convinced about your abilities to read words actually written on a page instead of reading words that you want to read, but the reason for your quote (if true, and if you haven't mangled it into a form fitting your particularly biased view of the world) is that certain incendiary weapons were phased out of service (like the flamethrower) with an eye towards complying with the CCCW even though the US wasn't a signatory.

Or I might add that "buster bombs" are air dropped and a different type of muntion than the one discussed, and banned outright in certain conditions by the CCCW.

But go ahead and read whatever you want to read irregardless of what is actually written since that my response would have been part of an intelligent debate where parties actually read and comphend the documents they were discussing.

Don't let any facts or words get in the way of your ranting.

[Faithless]

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.

[Bhodi_Li]

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)However, as a counter to this argument, in my 10 years of time in the Army I have never heard WP referred to as chemical weapons. In fact, for 2 years I was a chemical officer (something I keep quiet LOL) so I have some experience with chemical weapons. We have always defined WP as incendiary weapons.

[Martino]

Oops, snailpoo forgot to quote this part back at me:


And you completely ignore the most compelling piece of evidence of all: the fact that the US tried to cover up the fact that they used it, and DID cover it up for a whole year.

Now why would they do that, unless they themselves acknowledge the fact that WP can be regarded as a chemical weapon?

Still awaiting your insight on the 12 months of lies issued by the US Government on the use of WP in Iraq.

Three now famous quotes currently haunting Washington:

"To maintain that US forces have been using WP against human targets ... is simply mistaken."

Robert Holmes Tuttle, US Ambassador to the Court of St. James

"US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate, lawful and conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or phosphorus as weapons."

Ronold P Spogli, US Ambassador to Italy

"Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

Issued on November 12, 2004 by the U.S. Department of Defense in responce to the initial accusation of the use of WP as a weapon:

Lies, lies, and more lies about a 'legal' weapon. Looks like someone in Washington thinks the use of WP might not be appropriate and lawful after all.

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)

Oh, so they're only chemical weapons if someone else uses them?

Well, if snailpoo had said that from the start ...

[Faithless]

Interesting study of the Russian use of WP in Grozny.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/urbancombat/urbancombat.htm

The Russians point out a side benefit of white phosphorus is that white phosphorus smoke is toxic and readily penetrates protective mask filters. White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty.

Another link, makes the statement a compound sentence; i.e., "...and white phosphorus is not banned by any treaty."

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/cwbw/Ch9.pdf

What happened to this attempt to use red phosphorus over WP?

Because of the toxicity associated with the manufacture of white phosphorus and because of its field risks, a gradual shift to red phosphorus (95% phosphorus in a 5% butyl rubber base) was undertaken after World War II. The British smoke grenade (L8-A1-3), which used red phosphorus, produced adequate field concentrations of smoke and functioned as an effective tank screen. Oxidation of red phosphorus produces a variety of phosphorus acids that, on exposure to water vapor, produce polyphosphoric acids. These acids may produce mild toxic injuries to the upper airways that result in a cough and irritation. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to red phosphorus smokes.

[DragonKnight]

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)
So basically, if the United States uses it, it's incendiary. But if a government ran by a bunch of brown people uses it, it's chemical. :wink:

[snailpoo]

However, as a counter to this argument, in my 10 years of time in the Army I have never heard WP referred to as chemical weapons. In fact, for 2 years I was a chemical officer (something I keep quiet LOL) so I have some experience with chemical weapons. We have always defined WP as incendiary weapons.

Good luck trying to get people to actually listen to you. It's never waht the experienced people actually say or what the military itself actually believes or what the documents actually say --it's just whatever can be sensationalized to get the rant machine moving.



So basically, if the United States uses it, it's incendiary. But if a government ran by a bunch of brown people uses it, it's chemical.

You might want to reconsider pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation because the hypocrisy works both ways if you fully think through the implications of what they are saying. If WP was a chemical weapon... then that document not only proves the US lied about Fallujah, it would also prove the existence of chemical weapons in Saddam's Iraq, which, to anti-war protestors, is something that cannot be true. Oops.

There's also the problem that this document, if it is an actual document, was written probably by some random field agent in 1995, who 1. doesn't speak for the United States or the military, and 2. probably didn't know what exactly constitutes a chemical weapon or the military's classification of that particular chemical weapon.

[hooligan]

Think Progress is a progressive website, like the title implies.

In light of the U.S. military’s repeated denials as to the nature of White Phosphorus (WP) as a chemical agent, it is necessary to give some background on the U.S. Army’s development of WP during the Second World War, and with specific regard to WP’s development by the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS).

White Phosphorus was a chemical smoke agent developed primarily by the United States during World War II, and was intended to supplement other smoke agents already in use.[1] It was simultaneously apparent, however, that WP had a potential for use as an incendiary, and the CWS produced a large array of WP weapons ranging from hand grenades to 500 pound aerial bombs. In this regard, moreover, it should be noted that the CWS developed all of the incendiaries used by the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Therefore, insofar as the United States is concerned, the development of WP and incendiaries in general was deemed to be in the realm of chemical warfare, thus the role of the CWS in the development of these weapons.[2] As further evidence of the natural linkage of WP with chemical warfare, gas casualty treatment kits developed by the CWS specifically included remedies for exposure to WP.[3]

Therefore, given the roots of WP weaponry in the chemical warfare research and development process of the U.S. Army, it is highly disingenuous for the U.S. military today to claim that WP weapons are not chemical weapons. Indeed, as the historical record clearly shows, all incendiary weapons are chemical weapons, and were so regarded by the United States government at one time, before these historical facts became an embarassment to the justifications put forward in defense of the U.S. methods of waging war.

The U.S. Army’s official history, _The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field_, is highly recommended reading. In addition to a lengthy discussion of the development of WP weapons, the book also contains a number of photographs demonstrating the use of WP bombs in combat. Appendices in the book document the Army’s financial outlays in chemical warfare research and development, and should give a good idea of how systematically the CWS was supported in its endeavors. After all, the WP and other incendiary weapons used by the U.S. military today are merely refinements of the weapons developed in the 1940s.

Notes:

[1]Leo P. Brophy, Wyndham D. Miles and Rexmond C. Cochrane, _The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field_ (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1959), 405-6. The CWS also manufactured WP weapons to the specifications supplied by the British military.

[2]Ibid., Chapter VIII, Incendiaries, passim.

[2]Ibid., 94-95.

#

WHITE PHOSPHOR(O)US IS A CHEMICAL WEAPON IN THE US ARMY

A month later, the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service broke ground on a new chemical munitions manufacturing and storage facility named Huntsville Arsenal. Designed to supplement the production of the Army’s only other chemical manufacturing plant at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, Huntsville Arsenal was the sole manufacturer of colored smoke munitions. The facility was also noted for its vast production of gel-type incendiaries. In addition, it manufactured toxic agents such as mustard gas, phosgene, lewisite, white phosphorous, and tear gas. During WWII mor than 27 million items of chemical munitions having a total value of more than $134.5 million were produced at this war plant.
http://www.defenselink.mil/ specials/ womenhist2002/ army.html

On 29 December 1947, however, this notion was dispelled. At that time the Director of Services, Supply, and Procurement advised the Chief, Chemical Corps of the Secretary of the Army’s decision to declare the Huntsville installation excess to the needs of the Chemical Corps. The Chemical Corps then requested the Arsenal to submit plans for decontaminating the mustard gas plants and the white phosphorus plant and all the other contaminated areas on the installation. In addition, the Arsenal was to suggest plans for demilitarizing the M17 bomb and Lewisite gas.
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/studies/viii.html

If you follow some of the comments, they lead to interesting websites.

Notice thta these military sites call White Phosphorous a chemical weapon.

[snailpoo]

Think Progress is a progressive website, like the title implies.

If you follow some of the comments, they lead to interesting websites.

Notice thta these military sites call White Phosphorous a chemical weapon.

No, they don't. Do you realize how much of an anachronism this line of thought is? Those articles say that WP was under the control of the Chemical Warfare Service in the 1940s. Does that mean anything about the classification of WP?

Does NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory mean that all non-airbreating engines used in everything from the Saturn Rocket to the Space Shuttle are actually jets? In the 1940s, the Army flew the airplanes. Does that mean airplanes must always be associated with the Army? Just because a service controlled a substance or a technology doesn't have any bearing on the classification of that technology.

Your problem with using the Chemical Warfare Service to define WP as a chemical weapon, in addition to the host of other problems with 1940s terminology and interagency turf war, runs into the MAIN PROBLEM that chemical weapons were not defined until the Chemical Weapons Convention half a century after the Chemical Warfare Service was established. The Chemical Weapons Convention won't even exist for another half century after. The whole concept of placing limits on chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and incendiary weapons was still mostly non-existent then. The entire regulatory framework of what weapons falls into what catetory wouldn't exist for almost another half a century.

Which, of course, begs the question why, after for a century of the use of White Phosphorus as a weapon, does the Chemical Weapons Covention, when it does finally come into existence, not list White Phosphorus as a substance it controls?


Personally, I'd listen to Bhodi about how the military classifies WP instead of trying to stretch a definition from the name of a 1940s military service.

[hooligan]

Becaue the definition of "chemical weapon" depended on whoever used it and for what purpose? I'm listening to Bhodi, but I'm keeping an open mind about the subject matter. Also, there is an interesting history of this weapon that, in the links I've found, Bhodi hasn't mentioned. You can stop grasping at straws and just read up. I'm sure the drawing of the CWC is built upon politics. Those military pages (*.mil) seems to call WP or at least the manufacturing of WP a chemical agent.

IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL

Filename:22431050.91r
PATHFINDER RECORD NUMBER: 16134
GENDATE: 950504
NNNN
TEXT:
ENVELOPE CDSN = LGX854 MCN = 91107/02896 TOR = 911070142
RTTCZYUW RUEKJCS0771 1070142-CCCC--RUEALGX.
ZNY CCCCC
HEADER R 170142Z APR 91
FM JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC
RUEAHQA/CSAF WASHINGTON DC
RUEACMC/CMC WASHINGTON DC
RUEKCCG/USDP-CCC WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEALGX/SAFE
R 160504Z APR 91
FM CDR500THMIBDE CP ZAMA JA//IAGPD-OP-CM//
TO AIG 9149
RUCJACC/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//J2//
RUSNNOA/USCINCEUR VAIHINGEN GE
RUEDBIA/CDR513THMIBDE FT MONMOUTH NJ
RUAGAAA/CDR501STMIBDE SEOUL KOR//IABDK-PH//
RUAGAAA/CDR524THMIBN SEOUL KOR//IABDK-CX-PC//
RUAJMAB/FOSIF WESTPAC KAMI SEYA JA//CSG//
RUEOADA/9TIS SHAW AFB SC//INO//
RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU
BT
CONTROLS
SECTION 001 OF 002

SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 243 1050 91


/*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/
BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E

COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR).

SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES
(U)

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------------------------------

DOI: (U) 910300.

REQS: (U) T-8C2-2650-01-90.

SOURCE: [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]



SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE
IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS --
A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO
PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE
THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
(U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON
ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND
DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE
TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO
THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS
ALONG
THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN
THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER,
AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND
REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN
ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND
SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI
AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI
BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD
BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO
FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN
NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL
TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF
HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF
KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM
HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT
WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH
AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS
AND
REVOLVERS.
D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM
U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO
RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING
"DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA.
KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE
COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST
IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF
IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS
THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER
INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL
AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE
AREA.
2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES
ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT.
4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD
ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED
ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY.

//IPSP: (U) PGW 2650//.
//COMSOBJ: (U) 211//.
ADMIN PROJ: (U) 252132.
INSTR: (U) US NO.
PREP: (U) 500TH MI BDE.
ACQ: (U) TOKYO, JAPAN (910409).
DISSEM: (U) FIELD: NONE.
WARNING: (U) REPORT CLASSIFIED

wow, just wow.

[snailpoo]

To which the same answer would be:

You might want to reconsider pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation because the hypocrisy works both ways if you fully think through the implications of what they are saying. If WP was a chemical weapon... then that document not only proves the US lied about Fallujah, it would also prove the existence of chemical weapons in Saddam's Iraq, which, to anti-war protestors, is something that cannot be true. Oops.

There's also the problem that this document, if it is an actual document, was written probably by some random field agent in 1995, who 1. doesn't speak for the United States or the military, and 2. probably didn't know what exactly constitutes a chemical weapon or the military's classification of that particular chemical weapon.
If a random peon at a random counter at McDonalds started referring to hamburgers as hot dogs, does this mean that McDonalds suddenly changed their menu?

Do you realize that if the military really did classify WP as a chemical weapon, you'd get far more than just a brief mention by a some unknown in this one obscure document?

[DragonKnight]

Bah, all this talk and yakking about defining what a chemical weapon is. What I want to know is, why did the military lie about its use of white phosphorus in the first place? Makes you wonder that something is up.

[hooligan]

Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes

We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained

there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus “was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants”. He claimed “it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal.” This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, “ban its use on civilian but not military targets”. But the word “civilian” does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: “If … the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because … any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.”

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled “Possible use of phosphorus chemical”. “During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising,” it alleges, “Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil … and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships … These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly … hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas.” The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ comment/ story/ 0,3604,1647716,00.html


Q&A: White phosphorus
The Pentagon's confirmation that it used white phosphorus as a weapon during last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja has sparked criticism.

The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row.

What is white phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a solid, waxy man-made chemical which ignites spontaneously at about 30C and produces an intense heat, bright light and thick pillars of smoke.

US marines in Falluja (file photo, Nov 2004)
The US military says it used white phosphorus to flush out insurgents

It continues to burn until deprived of oxygen and, if extinguished with water, can later reignite if the particles dry out and are exposed again to the air.

Also known by the military as WP or Willie Pete, white phosphorus is used in munitions, to mark enemy targets and to produce smoke for concealing troop movements.

It can also be used as an incendiary device to firebomb enemy positions.

What are its effects?

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.

Skin burns must be immersed in water or covered with wet cloths to prevent re-combustion until the particles can be removed.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Long-term exposure to lesser concentrations over several months or years may lead to a condition called "phossy jaw", where mouth wounds are caused that fail to heal and the jawbone eventually breaks down.

How did the US use it?

The US initially denied reports it had used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja in November 2004, saying it had been used only for illumination and laying smokescreens.


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

However, the Pentagon has now confirmed the substance was used as an "incendiary weapon" during the assault.

It was deployed as a conventional - rather than chemical - munition, the military said, and its principal use was as a smokescreen and to mark enemy targets.

However, the US has now admitted its forces also used white phosphorus rounds to a lesser extent to flush enemy forces out of covered positions, allowing them to be targeted with high explosives.

The US military denies using the chemical against civilians and stresses its deployment is not illegal.

What are the international conventions?

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.

How widely is it used?

White phosphorus was extensively used as a smokescreen by Russian forces in the battle for the Chechen city of Grozny in December 1994.

The UK has confirmed it has the chemical and has used it in Iraq - but only to lay smokescreens.

The use of white phosphorus in incendiary devices dates back to World War I and beyond.

It was used in World War II predominantly for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades and tracer bullets.

The chemical also has many non-military applications, being widely used by industry in products ranging from toothpaste to fertiliser.

What is the current furore about?

The row began when Italy's state television network Rai claimed that white phosphorus had been used against civilians in a "massive and indiscriminate way" during the Falluja offensive.

Its documentary, Falluja - The Hidden Massacre, alleged that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of the burns it caused.

The allegations prompted demonstrations outside the US embassy in Rome by anti-war protesters and left-wing Italian politicians. Some European Parliament members have also demanded an inquiry into the munitions' use.

Critics say phosphorus bombs should not be used in areas where there is a risk they could cause serious burns or death to civilians.

Some have claimed the use of white phosphorus contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. This bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes".

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

Washington's initial denial of the use of white phosphorus as a weapon against enemy forces and subsequent retraction have been seen as damaging to its public image - despite the fact it has breached no treaty obligations.

BBC had a little snippet about effects and why WP is called an incendiary weapon. Also, it appears to note that if it is used for its chemical properities to cause harm (arbitrary definition) it then becomes a chemical weapon.

So, the question still remains, how was it used?

[Martino]

This weeks The Economist is of the opinion that "if it (WP) was deliberately or negligently used in a manner that was bound to cause many civilian casualties, that would be a war crime."

Page 65, November 19th-5th November 2005, in an editorial entitled Reaching for the moral low ground.

[Faithless]

Report drops Fallujah bombshell (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10356665)

24.11.05 | By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

ROME: The controversy over the American use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in Fallujah deepened yesterday when it was revealed that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP as a "chemical weapon".

The Italian journalist who sparked the controversy, Sigfrido Ranucci, told a press conference in Rome that while a colleague was browsing American Defence Department websites he had stumbled on a declassified intelligence report from the first Gulf War.

The file was headed "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders".

The report was made in late February 1991 during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq.

"Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. "The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

The intelligence report added that "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk.

"As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas across the border into Turkey".

Ranucci commented that "when Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible, however you describe it".

In the original RAI documentary, witnesses inside Fallujah during the November 2004 bombardment described the terror and excruciating agony suffered by victims of the shells fired by American artillery.

Two former US soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare to use the weapons.

The film and still photos posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses discovered after the city's destruction.

Many of the skin on the bodies had apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable.

Ranucci said he had seen "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

The US State Department and the Pentagon have shifted their position repeatedly in the aftermath of the film's showing.

After initially denying that US forces use WP as a weapon, the Pentagon said WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah.

Military analysts said there remained questions about the official US position on its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets prohibitions, such as its use on civilians.

Daryl Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, yesterday called for an independent investigation to scrutinise the US use of WP in Fallujah.

"If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said. "Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to." Although WP is classified as a conventional not a chemical weapon, its effects are chemical as well as merely thermal. The choking white smoke it produces is highly toxic, and causes severe burns internally and externally to anyone caught in its path.

Yesterday a further wrinkle was added to the row when Adam Mynott, a BBC correspondent posted to Nassiriya during the invasion of Iraq in April 2003, told Rai News 24 that he had seen WP apparently used as a weapon against insurgents in that city.

[snailpoo]

Report drops Fallujah bombshell (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10356665)

Ummm, isn't that the same "bombshell" from post 111, 117, and 119? I still don't see how thousands of official documents can classify WP one way, but one field report by an anonymous source has any bearing on the classification... unless of course, you're giving credence to this report, at which point you're also admitting that Saddam did have WMDs and thus justifying Bush's rationalization for war.

But then again, if you look at the definitions of chemical weapons, the use of WP as a weapon against military targets IS NOT prohibited. It's pretty interesting how none of these articles bothers to distinguish incendiary weapons from chemical weapons in their jump to vilify the American use of WP.


24.11.05 | By Peter Popham and Anne Penketh

ROME: The controversy over the American use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in Fallujah deepened yesterday when it was revealed that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP as a "chemical weapon".

The Italian journalist who sparked the controversy, Sigfrido Ranucci, told a press conference in Rome that while a colleague was browsing American Defence Department websites he had stumbled on a declassified intelligence report from the first Gulf War.


Yeah, none of this is politically motivated. It's just a coincidence that this is centered in Rome.