Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: US admits using white phosphorous in Falluja

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default US admits using white phosphorous in Falluja

    Not that big in itself, as it can be used for illumination, but through its use as an "anti-personnel" weapon it could be seen as tantamount to the use of a chemical weapon.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 79,00.html

    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.
    ...
    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".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Co ... 31,00.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default great minds...

    sorry that we crashed at same-purposes. You got there seconds ahead of me - I bow...
    trubba not
    no trubba

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    saying that a white phosphorus grenade is a chemical weapon, is like saying that a smoke grenade is a chemical weapon: which would make virtually every army in the world guilty of using chemical weapons.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    322
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    saying that a white phosphorus grenade is a chemical weapon, is like saying that a smoke grenade is a chemical weapon: which would make virtually every army in the world guilty of using chemical weapons.
    Badinage, the video can be seen at Clearinghouse.com. It's clear white phosphorous, is more than a smoke grenade. It's a way of napalming cities, without using the N word. If some terrorist explodes a white phosphorous bomb in some tube station, no doubt the Media will describe it as a chemical attack. Watch the video please.
    Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default it depends

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    saying that a white phosphorus grenade is a chemical weapon, is like saying that a smoke grenade is a chemical weapon: which would make virtually every army in the world guilty of using chemical weapons.
    It depends on what you do with your smoke grenade; do you lob it into a city street where people have easy options of egress, so that they can disperse? or do you stuff it down some poor sod's throat, strap it in place with duct tape, pinch his nostrils with a tightly sprung clothes peg, and set it off and walk away?

    Two very different uses of the same item...but smoke isnt nearly as dramatic as white phosphorus - it doesnt burn the skin right down to the bone like that does...and those who use it know this...
    trubba not
    no trubba

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badinage
    saying that a white phosphorus grenade is a chemical weapon, is like saying that a smoke grenade is a chemical weapon: which would make virtually every army in the world guilty of using chemical weapons.
    Have you read the circumstances over this issue? There are "reasonable" uses of White Phosphorous, but it seems these levels have been exceeded. It can make a very nasty weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogwarrior
    It's a way of napalming cities, without using the N word.
    Well, again, it can also be used for less ominous purposes. It may be worth of note that certain forms of napalm were also mentioned in this debate as part of the original invasion. Going back to Monbiot:

    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.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish08
    There are "reasonable" uses of White Phosphorous, but it seems these levels have been exceeded. It can make a very nasty weapon.
    Oh I know that. I remember reading a auto-biography of an Irish officer fighting in the British Army in Italy in World War 2. At one point, his unit is sneaking forward toward enemy trenches at night, when his scout gets caught in barbed wire. The Germans see him and fire, hitting him once in the stomach (a very painful but non-fatal wound), but also hitting and igniting a white phosphorous grenade in his webbing, lighting up the area. The whole battlefield then went silent as they listened to this poor bastard scream his head off as the white phosphorous burnt through his skin, burnt his intestines, all the way through to his spine, with the guy flailing and ripping himself open on the barbed wire. Its a horrendous, horrendous way to die. The officer shot him in the head once he'd managed to not vomit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogwarrior
    It's a way of napalming cities, without using the N word.
    But napalm isn't a chemical weapon either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogwarrior
    if some terrorist explodes a white phosphorous bomb in some tube station, no doubt the Media will describe it as a chemical attack. Watch the video please.
    Quite possibly, but the media would be wrong to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nawbut
    It depends on what you do with your smoke grenade; do you lob it into a city street where people have easy options of egress, so that they can disperse? or do you stuff it down some poor sod's throat, strap it in place with duct tape, pinch his nostrils with a tightly sprung clothes peg, and set it off and walk away?
    The smoke grenade still wouldn't be a chemical weapon.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    322
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    But isn't phosphorous a chemical?
    Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogwarrior
    But isn't phosphorous a chemical?
    isn't gunpowder a chemical? Does that mean the IRA used chemical weapons in an urban centre when they fired AK47s in Belfast?

    There are chemicals of some kind in pretty much every weapon in a modern arsenal. Standard explosives in basic artillery are technically chemicals. Smoke grenades are technically chemicals. etc etc

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons: "Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

    Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force."


    Under that definition, using a cigarette lighter to set fire to a hut in a Vietnamese village would technically be a chemical weapons attack.

    The Chemicals Weapons Convention:
    http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html



    ...
    I can't seem to find a video on www.clearinghouse.com. Does anyone have a direct link?

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default napalm too

    They used napalm, and lied about that as well it seems. If there is nothing wrong with any of this, why all the lies?

    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1115-29.htm
    trubba not
    no trubba

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •