US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[edward]

ere 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

Ahh yes the State Department of Spin Control.

OK now I will say this one more time.
White phosphorus is not used for illumination it creates a big white cloud that obscures.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.

Magnesium flares are used for illumination. And I do believe that we have a jillion dollars worth of night vision equipment in Iraq anyway.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/luu2.htm

 

[Evo]

Yes white phosphorus is great for smoke screens, however the US military has used white phosphorus for illumination flares for countless years.

"About 2:30 A.M., we heard noises in the night. We called the Sergeant of the Guard for permission to pop a flare. These hand held flares were different colors, but we always used white. You took off the cap and placed it on the bottom of the silver tube which was a little larger than a road flare. While holding the side of the tube, you smacked the cap on something hard. Doing so fired the small pyrotechnic flare up 50-75 feet before a small charge would "pop" and ignite the white phosphorus. It was suspended on a small parachute which would keep the illumination for a few minutes."

http://www.war-stories.com/plantation-nagle-pop-flare-1971.htm

 

[deckart]

Well, it looks like they may have devised a way to use it as a weapon. I mean, if you want to illuminate a city, you fire it above the city not into it. So one of two things happened, IMO. (1)They had an idiot who did not know how to use WP correctly or (2)They intentionally fired it into the city. Now if it is the latter, I'm disgusted.
I am not against our cause in Iraq, but civilians need to be considered as precious as our own troops. It's easy for me to say in the safety of my home, not being in the midst of the life and death fighting but those directing the battles have to be diligent to minimize civilian casualties.

 

[Evo]

Well, it looks like they may have devised a way to use it as a weapon. I mean, if you want to illuminate a city, you fire it above the city not into it. So one of two things happened, IMO. (1)They had an idiot who did not know how to use WP correctly or (2)They intentionally fired it into the city. Now if it is the latter, I'm disgusted.
I am not against our cause in Iraq, but civilians need to be considered as precious as our own troops. It's easy for me to say in the safety of my home, not being in the midst of the life and death fighting but those directing the battles have to be diligent to minimize civilian casualties.

I agree. The next part of this post has nothing to do with you.

People make stupid decisions, especially in stressful/emotional situations. I can't say that some weren't intentionally fired into the city. We will probably never know for sure. What bothers me are the people that fly off the handle screaming conspiracy, and making accusations without any proof.

What ever happened to considering possibilities rationally? I see a complete lack of rational thinking here at times. Sure there are bad people, bad things are done. Calmly make a point, don't lower yourself to tabloid tactics. That will turn most people off to your cause so fast it will make your head spin. Don't post something unless you have carefully and thoroughly checked it out. Otherwise, you are just wasting people's time.

Whatever happened to the American policy of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? It appears that some here prefer "guilty until proven innocent" if it has to do with something they don't agree with.

What would have been a good thread would have been "Italian video raises questions about Fallujah". Then proceed to list what might be evidence of wrongs and start a dialogue about it. I guess my hopes are too high. I'm getting really tired of dealing with the National Inquirer in here instead.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ahh yes the State Department of Spin Control.
OK now I will say this one more time.
White phosphorus is not used for illumination it creates a big white cloud that obscures.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232
Magnesium flares are used for illumination. And I do believe that we have a jillion dollars worth of night vision equipment in Iraq anyway.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/luu2.htm

You do realize that white phos is used in fireworks and incendiaries and that sort of thing as well right? It doesn't just make smoke. Really what do you call something that you shoot up into the sky which ignites, makes lots of light, then floats to the ground? I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.
Also if you really read around about what was being used by whom you will see references to the use of white phos smoke bombs aswell.

 

[Anttech]

Yes white phosphorus is great for smoke screens, however the US military has used white phosphorus for illumination flares for countless years.

Why would they use it as an ilumination when they have night vision? So they can blind themselfs, and give the enemy a hand in spoting where they are...

It seems illogical

 

[Skyhunter]

Whatever happened to the American policy of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

See PATRIOT acts 1 and 2.

Sure there could be other explanations, go ahead and offer them.

Go ahead and blame the rants of others on the title.

The film is what it is. What happened in Fallujah and what his happening in Iraq is deplorable. That helicopter was not illuminating the area, and there were no troops moving through the smoke after the WP was used.

Your right we will probably never know what happened because the facts are being suppressed. I am not so blindly patriotic as to believe the propaganda coming from the military.

 

[Art]

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.

I'll try one last time to explain it to you. Adam Ingram the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in Britain in response to a written question in parliament contacted the US authorities and asked if the US military had used either napalm or MK77s in Iraq. The reply he received was that they had not. This was misinformation commonly known as a lie. Based on the lie he had been told this is the answer Ingram gave to parliament

"The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time."
"No other coalition member has Mark 77 firebombs in their inventory."

Following Ingram's subsequent letter to MP Harry Cohen correcting this misinformation defence Secretary John Reid said

American officials in Baghdad had given the wrong information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
Now I do not give a rat's ass if another segment of the US gov't had already admitted using MK77s as apart from highlighting the incompetence of the US administration and the proof of the old adage that 'a good liar needs a good memory' it is completely irrelevant and has zero bearing on the central matter. Although the US confusion whether to confirm or deny no doubt arose from this earlier piece of Orwellian wordcraft

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'
At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001, it said.
The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.
Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon, said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds. Mr Musil said denial of its use fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration].
The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.
Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were remarkably similar to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.
But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it. Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs napalm.
Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie.
In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.
10 August 2003 14:12

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.

You mean yes. The US gov't report you cite admits they DID fire white phophorous shells in Fallujah.

Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes

Their claim that this was for illumination purposes has already been debunked by others here so I won't bother other than to provide this quote from Globalsecurity

Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect.

I'll also explain to you again as you apparently missed it the first time. WP is not illegal in itself but it's use in civilian areas is. Surprise, surprise Fallujah as a city qualifies as a civilian area; WP shells were fired on it (per your own source) and so this is in contravention of the Geneva Convention (per ref I supplied previously). Contraventions of the Geneva Convention constitute war crimes. The US gov'ts contention that they were using them for illumination is irrelevent; after all you could explode an atom bomb and claim it was for illumination. The fact remains the use of WP in civilian areas is prohibited and so the US gov'ts admission in itself creates a 'prima facie' case against them. Now if the US wants to claim a defence of stupidity that they didn't know about the side effects their 'illuminating' shells would have on the civilian populace they should do so from the dock of the world court.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes yes,.. illumination, they needed a LOT of light here..

Look at the flares... they just crashed with a bird in the sky and break in a lot of little flares turning into a rain of fire over the city, it was just an accident... or maybe they where trying to iluminate a wider area and just 1 flare wasnt enought...

 

[Bystander]

OK, folks --- this silly slapfest has spilled into the chem forum --- at which point I've got to sit through 27 minutes of crap.

The only nape and WP is from the VN clip. WP at night? Wash out any camera on the planet --- that's hot metal and bursting charge residue from a cluster munition. One illume round, maybe (looked more like thermite boiling a rocket motor), with a failed parachute hitting the ground and fizzing like a 4 July fountain (or Guy Fawkes for "john bull"), (woulda washed out the camera otherwise), little chain gun from the gunship (very nice shooting). The footage may impress the ignorant, and it doesn't have to be accurate to rattle the rabble which is what it's intended to do, but it ain't up to the standards of veracity demanded on PF, so take it elsewhere.

 

[Anttech]

So explain the burned bodies, with clothing intact?

 

[Art]

I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.
Also if you really read around about what was being used by whom you will see references to the use of white phos smoke bombs aswell.

Never mind 'reading around' did you even read your own references you supplied earlier? Here's an extract for you.

Because of this, WP has long had a secondary role as an incendiary, either directly or more usually as a "first fire" material

 

[Skyhunter]

From Wikipedia

Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time.

Here is another link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

 

[Art]

From Wikipedia
Here is another link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

Which explains the eyewitness reports of gas attacks which were rubbished by the US gov't.

 

[Burnsys]

Skyhunter great link
and i think this link will end all doubts about the subject:
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf
b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition.
We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

So can we say the US army used WP for killing pourposes. and not for iluminating as others want to belive.
And this also proves that the us government was AGAIN caugth lying..

 

[russ_watters]

So can we say the US army used WP for killing pourposes. and not for iluminating as others want to belive.
And this also proves that the us government was AGAIN caugth lying..

No. Reread the quotes you just posted. They do not say that the WP was used to kill people.

 

[Art]

No. Reread the quotes you just posted. They do not say that the WP was used to kill people.

Very droll

err you were joking I presume.

 

[Burnsys]

No. Reread the quotes you just posted. They do not say that the WP was used to kill people.

Sorry russ, you must be wearing Red glasses... remove them and read again:

c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.


And here is a quiz for you, if HE shakes, who bakes?

 

[Evo]

OK, folks --- this silly slapfest has spilled into the chem forum --- at which point I've got to sit through 27 minutes of crap.
The only nape and WP is from the VN clip. WP at night? Wash out any camera on the planet --- that's hot metal and bursting charge residue from a cluster munition. One illume round, maybe (looked more like thermite boiling a rocket motor), with a failed parachute hitting the ground and fizzing like a 4 July fountain (or Guy Fawkes for "john bull"), (woulda washed out the camera otherwise), little chain gun from the gunship (very nice shooting). The footage may impress the ignorant, and it doesn't have to be accurate to rattle the rabble which is what it's intended to do, but it ain't up to the standards of veracity demanded on PF, so take it elsewhere.

I couldn't agree more. Looking at the posts above it's is amazing how someone can read so much into so little and skew things so badly.

For example Burnsys misunderstanding why WP is classified as a munition.

 

[Evo]

We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.

Read this again. First of all it says "We used improved WP for screening missions " then "and saved our WP for lethal missions", well which was it? And by saving WP for their "lethal missions" only means they used the properties of WP (smoke, illumination) to help them when they were on critical missions. No where does it say that WP was used to kill anyone.

If people here can't stick to what is written without making up outlandish scenarios, I will lock the thread. Stick to the facts, please.

 

[Burnsys]

I couldn't agree more. Looking at the posts above it's is amazing how someone can read so much into so little and skew things so badly.
For example Burnsys misunderstanding why WP is classified as a munition.

You are right evo, i should have bolded: "versatile munition" and not only munition, Versatile becouse it can be used for: smoke, illumination, and baking..

 

[Skyhunter]

Read this again. First of all it says "We used improved WP for screening missions " then "and saved our WP for lethal missions", well which was it? And by saving WP for their "lethal missions" only means they used the properties of WP (smoke, illumination) to help them when they were on critical missions. No where does it say that WP was used to kill anyone.
If people here can't stick to what is written without making up outlandish scenarios, I will lock the thread. Stick to the facts, please.

If you read the entire article you will have a better understanding.

Is it common practice for mod's to comment without fully digesting the information, including linked articles etc?

 

[russ_watters]

c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.

In both cases, it was talking about WP (just different kinds), and in both cases, the use was for creating smoke, not to kill people.

And here is a quiz for you, if HE shakes, who bakes?

Read it again: the WP shakes, the HE (high-explosive) bakes. The high explosive, not the wp, was used to kill people. Ie:

using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

"flush them out" means...flush them out, and "take them out" means to kill.

Even more specific is the beginning of the quote:

We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon.

Screening and scaring. That's it. No killing.

 

[Art]

Read this again. First of all it says "We used improved WP for screening missions " then "and saved our WP for lethal missions", well which was it? And by saving WP for their "lethal missions" only means they used the properties of WP (smoke, illumination) to help them when they were on critical missions. No where does it say that WP was used to kill anyone.
If people here can't stick to what is written without making up outlandish scenarios, I will lock the thread. Stick to the facts, please.

What? The only people making up outlandish scenarios based on what they 'think' are all on your side of the debate. The other side of the debate has been presented factually and backed up by quotes and references.

The only rebuttal seems to be to jump on typos in sourced articles as if in some way this strengthens your case and reflects on the person who posted it. or to try and obfuscate the facts by proposing outlandish scenarios totally unsupported by any facts whatsoever or to keep requesting clarification of facts that are blatantly obvious.

Still if all else fails as you say you can always lock the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

Minor point of clarification:

This is what you quoted I then respondedI 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

WP is fired by artillery - I think you may have been reacting to past attempts to twist the wording. The issue isn't what it is fired by, but what it is fired at, and why.

 

[Evo]

What? The only people making up outlandish scenarios based on what they 'think' are all on your side of the debate. The other side of the debate has been presented factually and backed up by quotes and references.

We must be in two different threads.

Unsubstantiated quotes and references are just that. They don't make something true. And they should be treated as just that. I don't dismiss the possibility that wrongs were done or that there could be cover ups. If there weren't, this war would be a first. My problem is with the way some people take something and start claimining that it's a proven fact when it is not. It's so easy to shoot holes into their argument at that point. If they were able to take events and evidence that are as yet unproven and make a compelling, rational case, it would be much more effective. It's just not happening here. I guess it's the years of being an interscholastic debate judge that makes me bristle when people don't know how to make a case.

 

[Art]

Minor point of clarification: WP is fired by artillery

Nice to see you agreeing with me but if you check the posts above you will find I have already replied in factual detail and am awaiting a response.

- I think you may have been reacting to past attempts to twist the wording

Per Evo's post please provide the factual evidence for this statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Nice to see you agreeing with me but if you check the posts above you will find I have already replied in factual detail and am awaiting a response. Per Evo's post please provide the factual evidence for this statement.

Sure, Art.

The military did use WP in Falluja, so that isn't the crux of the issue. The issue is how and why was it used.

Here is your previous statement:

WP is not illegal in itself but it's use in civilian areas is. Surprise, surprise Fallujah as a city qualifies as a civilian area; WP shells were fired on it (per your own source) and so this is in contravention of the Geneva Convention (per ref I supplied previously).

You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

The US gov'ts contention that they were using them for illumination is irrelevent; after all you could explode an atom bomb and claim it was for illumination.

No. An atom bomb is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction", and different rules apply. You cannot use an atom bomb anywhere and reasonably claim that it was for illumination only.

That is, of course, why you were trying to argue previously that WP is a "chemical weapon", and therefore a WMD - if it were, it would be illegal regardless of use.

 

[russ_watters]

Something else that deserves expansion:

Really what do you call something that you shoot up into the sky which ignites, makes lots of light, then floats to the ground? I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Actually, when people say that WP is used as an incendiary, that is precisely what they mean (the flare-gun in a movie analogy). In one of those links floating around, it was mentioned that WP is good for igniting ammunition depots. It works well for that because it burns hot and so can "cook off" munitions that are otherwise relatively stable - stable enough that they tend not to ignite, even in an open flame (that's done for safety). It isn't as good for, say, lighting a house on fire, because it can burn right through materials without leaving them on fire. For that, a dispersed flaming liquid or jel (like the Mk77 or napalm) is better because of its coverage.

 

[Art]

We must be in two different threads.

That would explain a lot

Unsubstantiated quotes and references are just that. They don't make something true. And they should be treated as just that.

This is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. Seeing as how we do not have an all knowing scrupulously honest oracle available to us we need to rely on reports by people with all of the inherent errors and bias that make up the human race and so your statement is simply a truism as all of us have different views of what constitutes a creditable source.

Afterall who gets to decide what is a valid source and what isn't? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I have even known the BBC to be dismissed on this forum as an invalid source.

I don't dismiss the possibility that wrongs were done or that there could be cover ups. If there weren't, this war would be a first. My problem is with the way some people take something and start claimining that it's a proven fact when it is not. It's so easy to shoot holes into their argument at that point. If they were able to take events and evidence that are as yet unproven and make a compelling, rational case, it would be much more effective. It's just not happening here. I guess it's the years of being an interscholastic debate judge that makes me bristle when people don't know how to make a case.

IMHO I think I put together a very compelling argument in my earlier post in response to a request from you for a 'better' explanation and look forward to your reply.

 

[russ_watters]

You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

Hmm... it looks like I may have gven you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have. Assuming you were referring to this quote:

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. [emphasis added]

Since the highlighted phrase does not apply to WP - neither its primary purpose, nor its use in this case was for the purpose of setting fire to objects or causing burn injuries.

Short, even, of looking for technicalities to make it apply, this protocol does not apply to WP in this case at all.

 

[Art]

Sure, Art.
The military did use WP in Falluja, so that isn't the crux of the issue. The issue is how and why was it used.

Ah just for the record i see you've now changed your original post without providing the factual evidence I requested. I'm not sure this is really what Evo meant by improving the standard of this debate.

Here is your previous statement: You declaring it an illegal use does not make it so. Ie, what is a "civilian area"? A single building? A city block? You are stating that the entire city, by definition, is a civilian area. You need to prove that assertion - just saying it doesn't make it true.

Ahem no Russ the onus is on you to prove what is ostensibly a civilian area was actually a secret military base.

No. An atom bomb is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction", and different rules apply. You cannot use an atom bomb anywhere and reasonably claim that it was for illumination only.

Yes it would be a ridiculous claim to try and hide illegal activity behind a weak excuse like that wouldn't it.

That is, of course, why you were trying to argue previously that WP is a "chemical weapon", and therefore a WMD - if it were, it would be illegal regardless of use.

More obfuscation The use of WP against civilian areas is illegal under the Convention on Conventional Weapons as I have already posted, so let's not go down the strawman route again, it detracts from serious debate.

 

[Smurf]

Ahem no Russ the onus is on you to prove what is ostensibly a civilian area was actually a secret military base.

He's got you there, Russ. A city is a civilian area. Unless they were specifically targetting a military target, which has yet to be shown.

 

[Art]

Hmm... it looks like I may have gven you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have. Assuming you were referring to this quote: Since the highlighted phrase does not apply to WP - neither its primary purpose, nor its use in this case was for the purpose of setting fire to objects or causing burn injuries.
Short, even, of looking for technicalities to make it apply, this protocol does not apply to WP in this case at all.

You are wrong per sources previously supplied not to mention the pictures of the corpses of women and children. Again per Evo's request please research material you intend to post before posting it.

 

[Evo]

He's got you there, Russ. A city is a civilian area. Unless they were specifically targetting a military target, which has yet to be shown.

Actually there was something posted previously showing that the use was allowed because they had an identified military target there. That's been one of the issues, the insurgents intentionally hide among the civilians hoping that will provide safety It's horrible and it's cowardly. Using innocent people as shields is disgusting. That puts the military in a very uncomfortable position. Yes, it's war and there will be civilian casualties, but to intentionally put civilians in harms way is deplorable.