US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[Skyhunter]

I thought the purpose of this forum is to share, debate, discuss, and argue political events.

After I watched the documentary clip with all that live footage I wanted to share it with others to discuss. I wasn't looking to shape the debate, or set forth an argument.

What I see in that video is corpses burnt crisp with their clothes intact.

Is that or is that not what you would expect to see as a result of exposure to WP?

In my eyes that is a chemical weapon. The wording of the title is my own. Sorry that it set you off russ, that was not my intention.

I am not going to argue with anyone about semantics.

Watch the footage and post a comment or not. But don't prejudge it and then rant about what you have not seen. If you don't want to watch it that is your choice. If you want to make uninformed biased commentary in huge letters, go ahead.

The truth is powerful when used as propaganda. Live footage is evidence, draw your own conclusions. This clip is worth viewing and many people will.

What was done in Falluja is wrong and is being exposed.

Closing your eyes does not make it go away.

 

[loseyourname]

Now perhaps the US gov't sneaks under the bar by changing a molecule here and there but the fact remains the US used the very same type of weapons against the Iraqis whose (non-existant) possession of which was used as the justification for the war.

I thought the chemical weapons that were believed to be possessed by Iraq were toxic gases.

 

[Skyhunter]

Actually it is all in the semantics. The military in the field still uses the term "Napalm"
I would imagine that is because it is easier that saying "MK77 MOD5 jellied jetfuel mixed with polystyrene incendiary bomb"
http://vitw.org/archives/667
As for the white phosphorus there is a brilliant flash when it explodes, but it is not used as someone mentioned "to light up an area" magnesium flares do that. What matters now is that the entire world, with the exception of a few people in the USA, does believe that we used white phosphorus.

This is almost as disturbing as seeing all those graphic images.

Just like the leak that the CIA has a secret prison network in Eastern Europe, these types of actions by the US government serves to incite more hatred towards Americans.

I am beginning to believe our foreign policy is not the result of ignorance and bumbling by Bush. I am starting to think that the extraordinary actions of our government is by design, for nefarious reasons.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought the chemical weapons that were believed to be possessed by Iraq were toxic gases.

OK I blew it with the title.

I don't care what the legal definition is of "chemical weapons". That is not the point I want to discuss.

Seeing this has only reinforced my belief that the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake and we are still paying for it.

 

[loseyourname]

OK I blew it with the title.
I don't care what the legal definition is of "chemical weapons". That is not the point I want to discuss.
Seeing this has only reinforced my belief that the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake and we are still paying for it.

I wasn't answering your post. Art said that the US was using the same types of weapons that it invaded Iraq for supposedly possessing, but I thought that Iraq was invaded for supposedly possessing toxic gases and biological agents.

 

[deckart]

That ending footage made no sense to the issue of napalm, if it was ever used. They failed to show ALL the footage, which I have seen. Which shows the combatants hiding RPGs then running to get them and drawing them, looking for the apache chopper that was monitoring their movement. It's called selective editing to prove your cause. I'm not challenging the the bulk of the video (the images are real but I simply do not know where it is legit) but running a lengthy video then editing the content of an unrelated segment in the end to suit your cause is misleading and makes the entire thing suspect. Seriously, if what they are showing is true then why edit video that is totally unrelated to napalm or chemical weapons? Unless it is simply a spin on actual events.
War is hell. Despite what many like to believe, it is necessary. In all of human history there have been ideals humans have chosen to live for and to die for. In the Western Civilization we hold a particular standard of behavior and a particular respect for life. And we will go to any extreme to defend and uphold it because that is the life we know. And that is reality my friends. When we fail to uphold our way of life, others will kill us to uphold theirs. If we decided to quit upholding our values, we will be killed by those that have ideals that differ. The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.

I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

 

[Bilal]

- You admitted that this war is not about ‘’liberation’’ or mass destruction weapons, but to kill the ‘’evil’’ Muslims and to destroy their countries as crusaders and recently Zionists did in my country.

- Everyone knows that Iraq was the most secular country in ME before the war. The spiritual father of Baath party is Arab chsraitian and the second man in Iraq (Tariq Aziz) is Christian also. Accordingly, how you can justify the invasion of Iraq by your theory about the war against the ‘’evil Muslims’’?

- Bush said already that he invaded Iraq because the god told him. He is the one who is not tolerating with non Anglo-saxon white Baptist Christian. He believes in Armageddon in ME, and thus he wants to create instability so Jesus can return back swimming in the blood of ‘’evil Muslims’’. There is no big difference between him and OBL.

- Muslims do tolerate other religions, and for that reasons we have more than 10% of Arabs are Christian, and many of them are leaders (e.g. president of Lebanon).

- Zionist Jews are not innocent victims, they invaded my country and they kicked out the Palestinian people (18% of Palestinian are Christian) to create pure Jews State. USA and UK supports their crimes and give them excuses to ignore the international laws since decades. This aggression and double standard of western politicians since 1WW is the first reason why there are a gap between USA and the rest of the world.

Most of people of ME are fighting for democracy and freedom since decades, but thanks to USA who supported the corrupted dictators (including Saddam) since 60 years as Bush said, and thanks again for them for supporting the ethic cleansing of Palestinian people by kicking out complete nation from his homeland to find place for European Jews!

At last do not forget that OBL and Saddam was supported by CIA not by Islam.

The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.
I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

 

[Art]

I wasn't answering your post. Art said that the US was using the same types of weapons that it invaded Iraq for supposedly possessing, but I thought that Iraq was invaded for supposedly possessing toxic gases and biological agents.

Type = WMD / illegal weapons.
White phosporous when delivered by artillary shells produces a gas cloud which when inhaled burns you from the inside out and it's use against civilian areas whether or not there are military present is prohibited by international law thus the US military commited a war crime. Now instead of sitting in denial or worse, trying to justify it, accept it as it is and you might begin to understand why there is so much animosity to the US campaign in Iraq from the rest of the world.

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had “lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq”. (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American “free press” is yoked to the center of power in Washington. As we’ve seen with the Downing Street memo, (which was reluctantly reported 5 weeks after it appeared in the British press) the air-tight American media ignores any story that doesn’t embrace their collective support for the war. The prospect that the US military is using “universally reviled” weapons runs counter to the media-generated narrative that the war was motivated by humanitarian concerns (to topple a brutal dictator) as well as to eliminate the elusive WMDs. We can now say with certainty that the only WMDs in Iraq were those that were introduced by foreign invaders from the US who have used them to subjugate the indigenous people.
“Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm” the Pentagon insisted that “US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.” (UK Independent)
The Pentagon lied.
Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, “since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area.”

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8186&sectionID=15

 

[Art]

No, people generically referring to something as napalm does not make it napalm. People make incorrect references all of the time.

I wonder if the people incinerated by MK77s fully understand or care about the subtle difference between napalm and MK77 mod 5. The main difference being that MK77 mod 5 is considered more environmentally friendly.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.

We will never know what one person told another. The ONLY fact is what was PUBLICLY known at the time, which is not what the UK defense minister claimed, shame on him.

WE all do know what one person told another. Only those who do not wish to believe it do not.

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9175.htm

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

I'll help you

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Protocol IV,
Vienna, 13 October 1995
Protocol II, as amended,
Geneva, 3 May 1996
...Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by 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 a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

It is interesting to note that the US justified their invasion of Iraq on the grounds of the 'terrible weapons of mass destruction' Iraq supposedly held whilst they themselves have a long history (going all the way back to 1900) of refusing to sign international agreements banning 'terrible weapons of mass destruction'. A case of 'Do as I say don't do as I do'.

 

[Polly]

That ending footage made no sense to the issue of napalm, if it was ever used. They failed to show ALL the footage, which I have seen. Which shows the combatants hiding RPGs then running to get them and drawing them, looking for the apache chopper that was monitoring their movement. It's called selective editing to prove your cause. I'm not challenging the the bulk of the video (the images are real but I simply do not know where it is legit) but running a lengthy video then editing the content of an unrelated segment in the end to suit your cause is misleading and makes the entire thing suspect. Seriously, if what they are showing is true then why edit video that is totally unrelated to napalm or chemical weapons? Unless it is simply a spin on actual events.

May the dead rest in peace.

I look at the edition quite differently. The ending footage is an artistic expression of the subtext that Iraqis, looked down from a vantage point, are squashed like roaches under the snooperscope in a detached, game way, as if they were sub-human. One also gets the feeling of the one-sided supremacy of US military power. These points echoes what we already know from the theme footage and elsewhere.

 

[Skyhunter]

May the dead rest in peace.
I look at the edition quite differently. The ending footage is an artistic expression of the subtext that Iraqis, looked down from a vantage point, are squashed like roaches under the snooperscope in a detached, game way, as if they were sub-human. One also gets the feeling of the one-sided supremacy of US military power. These points echoes what we already know from the theme footage and elsewhere.

This kind of one sided power only serves to turn otherwise despicable hateful people into heros. This is the wrong way to fight terrorism. What the government is doing is only fanning the flames.

As we descend further and further into barbarism deckart, your argument becomes weaker and weaker.

When you can no longer tell the difference between one side and the other, who can say which is right?

 

[Skyhunter]

I also have the complete footage from the gunship from the end of the clip if anyone would like it pm me.

 

[Evo]

WE all do know what one person told another. Only those who do not wish to believe it do not.

Art, explain how the US government "lied" when it had already publicly posted this information on the internet? Your "article" is meaningless.

I'll help you

That doesn't answer the question of what was actually used. I may have time to look it up tonight.

 

[Art]

Art, explain how the US government "lied" when it had already publicly posted this information on the internet? Your "article" is meaningless.

I'm sorry Evo but you'll have to research it yourself as I can't find a simpler way to explain it . Still I'm sure the vast majority of readers here WILL understand how the US gov't lied first to the public in general and then to the British gov't specifically re their use of MK77s.

That doesn't answer the question of what was actually used. I may have time to look it up tonight.

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

 

[Burnsys]

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

No. they are just going around in circles, avoiding the point...

and the point is, The US used incendiaries weapons (be it, mk77, napalm, wp) over places with civilian populations.. resulting in the burning alive of a lot of inocent civilians.

 

[Skyhunter]

No. they are just going around in circles, avoiding the point...
and the point is, The US used incendiaries weapons (be it, mk77, napalm, wp) over places with civilian populations.. resulting in the burning alive of a lot of inocent civilians.

There seems to be an active effort to quash discussion of this topic.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Anttech]

war is hell. Despite what many like to believe, it is necessary. In all of human history there have been ideals humans have chosen to live for and to die for. In the Western Civilization we hold a particular standard of behavior and a particular respect for life. And we will go to any extreme to defend and uphold it because that is the life we know. And that is reality my friends. When we fail to uphold our way of life, others will kill us to uphold theirs. If we decided to quit upholding our values, we will be killed by those that have ideals that differ. The Muslims will not tolerate the Christians (let alone the Jews). And those of you that haven't any religious preference or respect at all are just as "evil" in their eyes, if not more so. Now, the Christian religion has actually been as intolerable as history has shown, but that really cannot be said as of modern times. Fundamental Christians do not kill people because they aren't Christian. Many will disagree, saying that because Bush is Christian that is why we are at war (that and oil and Capitalism and...). But, in the extremist Muslim religion it IS the case. They WILL kill you if you are not Muslim, do not conform, or stand contrary to their holy beliefs. This is the reality, and the enemy of Western Civilization as we know it.

I am only referring to combatant "extremist" Muslims. Not the peaceful Muslims we have shared civilization with for hundreds of years.

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.
Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

 

[deckart]

It would be better that you spoke for yourself. Athough you seem to think you are talking on behalf of the west, your views are extreem, and are not the views held by the majority... So I suppose you could be thought of as the Yang to the Ying of extreem muslims.

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

Also you are factually wrong, considering Christians and Muslms have been living together since Islams conseption, not "hundreds of years"

? Islam began in the 7th century, "hundreds of years" ago.

 

[Art]

Whether I'm a minority in my opinion is entirely debateable and I really don't care anyhow. I guess if traditional American values are the Yang then yes.

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

 

[loseyourname]

Type = WMD / illegal weapons.
White phosporous when delivered by artillary shells produces a gas cloud which when inhaled burns you from the inside out and it's use against civilian areas whether or not there are military present is prohibited by international law thus the US military commited a war crime. Now instead of sitting in denial or worse, trying to justify it, accept it as it is and you might begin to understand why there is so much animosity to the US campaign in Iraq from the rest of the world.

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[Art]

Who's denying anything? I just asked whether Iraq had supposedly possessed incendiaries or toxic gases. You might be surprised because the only thing anyone around here seems to want to do is argue, but I wasn't trying to make a point.

It's difficult to be precise as to what weapons they were accused of having as at various times leading up to the invasion the US gov't said;

August 7, 2002 - US Vice-President Dick Cheney: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

September 12, 2002 - US President George Bush at the United Nations General Assembly: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

January 28, 2003 - George Bush in a State of the Union address: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

February 5, 2003 - US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council: "While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket-launchers and warheads containing a biological warfare agent to various locations ... in western Iraq."

March 16, 2003 - Dick Cheney press conference: "We believe he [Saddam] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong."

March 17, 2003 - George Bush in his address to the US before the war: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He obviously hadn't had a peep into his own arsenal.

 

[deckart]

IMHO the majority of americans would be outraged by your claim to be upholding traditional american values. A sense of fairness is an inherent part of those traditional values you refer to which is totally lacking in your stated attitude to the muslim religion.

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not true on both counts. The majority of Americans would not be outraged by my claim of upholding traditional American values. The liberal media has you snowed.
I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings and hacking off heads of innocent civilians trying to help their people. It's a slap in the face to our trusting fellow humans to be civil.
But, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get it now, you never will.

How can you connect the Iraqi's to 9/11?

And he was over there to make money, not help their people.

 

[edward]

I have no qualms with the Muslim religion. We hadn't had a problem with them until the extremists began flying airliners into our buildings

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.

The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.

Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

 

[deckart]

The problems with Islam began with the Crusades. And then as now, we are trying to control an religious idealogy by using military force. There are reasons why terrorists became terrorists. And those resaon have more to do with oil and Isarel than anything else.
The planes flown into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq.
Now, we have to in some way, convince the rest of the world that it was justified to fry women and children in Fallujah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

You guys are right, it doesn't have to do with Iraq directly. But, from the information that we are being fed (which of course can be conflictiing) the resistance in Iraq is from insurgents that are not Iraqi. They are religious zealots willing to kill themselves to harm Iraqi's who desire democracy and Americans alike.
And I do not condone the use of napalm or napalm like weapons on civilian targets. That's just plain wrong and cannot be justified.

 

[deckart]

How can you connect the Iraqi's to 9/11?
And he was over there to make money, not help their people.

I thought he was over there as part of the reconstruction. So yes, he would be making money doing that. But, he wasn't military nor their to harm anyone and therefore should not have been decapitated.

 

[Art]

You guys are right, it doesn't have to do with Iraq directly. But, from the information that we are being fed (which of course can be conflictiing) the resistance in Iraq is from insurgents that are not Iraqi. They are religious zealots willing to kill themselves to harm Iraqi's who desire democracy and Americans alike.
And I do not condone the use of napalm or napalm like weapons on civilian targets. That's just plain wrong and cannot be justified.

Check it out and you'll find the VAST majority of the insurgents are Iraqi not foreign fighters.

Foreign detainees are few in Iraq
By Peter Eisler and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.
Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis.

The numbers represent one of the most precise measurements to date of the composition of the insurgency and suggest that some Bush administration officials have overstated the role of foreign holy warriors, or jihadists, from other Arab states. The figures also suggest that Iraq isn't as big a magnet for foreign terrorists as some administration critics have asserted

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm
Bush and co lied about why he was going to war and is continuing to lie about the nature of the war.

As ever the facts do not quite gel with the nonsense spouted by the White House. Another strange discrepancy is the claim by the Bush admin that the insurgency are being fed by the Iranians and yet the insurgency is mainly comprised of Sunni's whereas Iran is Shi'ite. Bit of a mis-match there as the shi'ites and sunni's are at war with each other.

 

[RunDMC]

Find a good European news service from a country where dead bodies on the TV is less of a taboo. That way, you can see all the actual violence and killing in Iraq without having to watch emotive pre-clips from 60's Vietnam.

I think there's actually something to that. Americans don't tend to see too many open skulls at dinner time and and images of children with their legs torn off quite as often (which I totally agree with BTW -- children watch the news, too!), so they are quite put off when they travel abroad and hear such condemnation for the whole Iraq mess.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought he was over there as part of the reconstruction. So yes, he would be making money doing that. But, he wasn't military nor their to harm anyone and therefore should not have been decapitated.

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way implying that he should have been decapitated. And filming it for Americans to see just serves to strengthen the resolve of persons with similar sensibilities as yourself. Just like the Italian documentary, will strengthen the resolve of those on the other side.

BTW - His father blames Bush for his sons death.

What happened in Fallujah is a result of the actions of the current US administration. We did not need to attack Iraq to fight terrorism, in fact, attacking Iraq is fueling terrorism, not diminishing it.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry Evo but you'll have to research it yourself

Research what? Either you can explain it or you can't. I asked you a simple question, since it was already public knowledge, posted by the US government on it's own website for the entire world to see, obviously the US Government wasn't trying to conceal anything. I think the UK Defense Minister misunderstood what he was told. This was an exchange, supposedly, between two people, the US Government wasn't lying to anyone, the truth was already out there.

Still I'm sure the vast majority of readers here WILL understand how the US gov't lied first to the public in general and then to the British gov't specifically re their use of MK77s.

Only if they can't read.

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

This is what you quoted

[Point 3.
As witnessed by the Sunday Times reporter Simon Jenkins, white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells. Also white phosphorous is included in the schedule of chemicals which were to be declared and verified under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although not illegal in themselves the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. (such as Fallujah perhaps).

I then responded

I haven't had time to check on this, but if it's wrong, and everything else has been, you know I'll find it. I'm too tired to look tonight.

I have no idea what tangent you've gone off on, I'm looking for evidence of your claim "white phosphorous was fired into Fallujah by means of artillary shells".

Here it is. Nope. They were used for illumination and as you state are not illegal.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are you doubting incendiaries were used in Fallujah?

I'll get back to this later, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the sources but from what I have read MK77 is the only type of incendiary munition in active inventory with the US military. If so then no WP incendiaries are supposed to even be available for use. The military does how ever use WP in smoke screen devices such as smoke bombs. From what I read it is common for small bits of WP to fly off of such devices when they go off. The smoke from WP can also be toxic which may explain the ashen unburned corpses that were mention previously.

I'll be back in about an hour with more possibly.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'll get back to this later, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the sources but from what I have read MK77 is the only type of incendiary munition in active inventory with the US military. If so then no WP incendiaries are supposed to even be available for use. The military does how ever use WP in smoke screen devices such as smoke bombs. From what I read it is common for small bits of WP to fly off of such devices when they go off. The smoke from WP can also be toxic which may explain the ashen unburned corpses that were mention previously.
I'll be back in about an hour with more possibly.

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.

When white phosphorus burns:
P4 + 5 O2 → 2 P2O5

The formed phosphorus pentoxide absorbs water from your tissues and quickly converts into phosphoric acid which then burns your skin:

P2O5 + 3 H2O → 2 H3PO4
__________________
i already know how this will end

If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

 

[Evo]

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.
If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

When white phosphorus flares are used for illumination, some of it does fall to the ground and some people could accidently get burned as a result.

Here's a quote from the Newsweek article written right after the attack on Fallujah.

"At intervals, white phosphorus rounds would illuminate entire sections of the city, showering down balls of orange flame and leaving behind smoky jellyfish-shaped silhouettes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6479631/site/newsweek/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Those sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?n=224;c=8/7/3/1;s=1;d=14;w=728;h=90

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

I asked in the Chemistry sub-forum how WP could burn flesh and not clothes.
If you watch the video clip in the op you will see what is purported to be bodies burned by WP. There is also some footage of a rain of fire coming from a helicopter and before that what appeared to be incendiary mortar fire. There are also claims that film footage from Fallujah is being destroyed.

I am at work and can not watch the entire video. What I have seen looks like flares which corresponds with the US official story.
What I have read also states that the use of WP is not illegal.

I will agree, and I think every one here will, that the effects seen due to the use of WP in Fallujah are terrible and that it would be best to not use these devices in such situations.
The fact remains that the US has not willfully engaged in the use of illegal weapons. It is also up in the air as to whether or not the manner in which the devices were utilized was illegal. To say that illegal weapons were used or that the US are responsible for breech of any concordance does not accurately portray the facts.

 

[devil-fire]

i think that because WP is classified as something other then a weapon there are no official restrictions on its use. even if it was being used to illuminate areas that did not need to be illuminated and it killed non-combatinents in the process, it would not officially be "used illegally" but that largely has to do with the classification of the device and not the effect it has in the area.

if flares cause the indiscriminate death of people who are in shelter, and then video documentation of the event is stolen i don't care if it breaks official guide lines. i consider the use of the device to be immoral in that situation.