US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[SOS2008]

I don’t know what the U.S. has in its arsenal, but when bunker busters, torture, etc. are promoted, it makes one wonder. And people can try to pretty it up by changing the Department of War to the Department of Defense, and use whatever euphemism they choose, like “collateral damage” nonetheless the results are death and destruction.

Other than that, I’m not falling for the BAN BAIT, so I'm out of this thread.

 

[Evo]

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.

Yeah, it was well done, really irritated me.

 

[Skyhunter]

My purpose in starting this thread was to bring to the attention of others the documentary I had seen.

Whether or not the US military violated any "rules of war" is beside the point. Here is a great post on KOS by Hunter that puts it into perspective.

I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

 

[Art]

Actually there was something posted previously showing that the use was allowed because they had an identified military target there.

I hate to be pedantic Evo but can you supply a reference for this statement as here is what the protocol actually says

Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. 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.
2. 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.
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.

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.

It doesn't help the non-combatant civilians separate themselves from the insurgents when the US military refused to allow any males between the ages of 18 and 65 to leave the city of Fallujah prior to the bombardment.

 

[Art]

Yeah, it was well done, really irritated me.

That's women for you. Give them what they ask for and then they don't want it
No wonder they say 'can't live with them and can't shoot them' (or something like that)

 

[edward]

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.

It depends on the mixture of chemicals used, and we arent talking about fireworks here. Actually true illumination also aids the enemy and is a blinding disadvantage to our troops who use night vision equipment.

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.

This was definately not 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.

I have read through several hundred pages! This was Dresden in Iraq. 500 pound Willy Peter bombs were used extensively to completely saturate the city with smoke while our tanks moved into position to cordon off the city. There was even a friendly fire incident where the WP landed on our own troops. The WP artillery shells used were 120mm not 155mm. The Marines also had WP rockets which were fired from several types of launch platforms.

I don't really care what is used on true insurgents. I have a big problem with the use of incendiary devices on cities. There were thousands of innocent people, women and children included, who did not or could not evacuate the city.
Why they didn't evacuate I am not exactly sure. But it appears that our troops dropped leaflets informing of a mandatory evauation in 48 hours. Then the military immediately closed off all roads leaving the city except one. Not all of the 300,000 residents could make it out of the city before the bombs started to fall. I have read accounts that indicate that 20,000 to 30,000 noncombatants were still in Fallujah.

I had a good link on this but for some reason it no longer works.

 

[devil-fire]

My purpose in starting this thread was to bring to the attention of others the documentary I had seen.
Whether or not the US military violated any "rules of war" is beside the point. Here is a great post on KOS by Hunter that puts it into perspective.

this is a point i think that is neglected too often in war, that when the other side's combatinents (note, most of these insurgents are considered civilians anyway) are among non-combatinents, different weapons should be used in that situation.

if a device like WP can kill people who are caught in the smoke, then don't use it on a neighborhood with women and children, "combat zone" or otherwise.



this is off topic and just my opinion but i think most of the insurgents who attack military patrols from residential areas do so because houses provide a lot of cover from bullets and not because civilians provide cover from large bombs and other such area of effect weapons, as is shown in fallujah (not specifically to do with WP or mk77 but just the large number of casualties).

 

[edward]

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

Countless years for sure, your link is from an account of events that took place in 1972.

More from the same link, an accout of GI launching a phosphorus flare:

After several minutes of dodging this missile it came to rest, and with a pop ignited the white phosphorus flare blinding us. I squinted to see where it had landed. To my horror it was burning brightly on a box of grenades! We yelled and started throwing everything out of the tower. I picked up the burning phosphorus with an old flak jacket and threw it over board. Several of the guys were already on the ground as they had un-assed the tower when the flare came back inside!

This is why phosprous flares were replaced.

 

[Mercator]

I have been out of this discussion because in my view, it's a side issue. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong period. But when TSM sent me this link, I looked at it and recalled my disgust about one of Saddam's experiments: upon his orders they once sprayed a crowd of Kurds with Sulphuric acid from a helicopter. Now I've got experience with H2SO4 in bulk and t's one of the nastiests stuffs I've seen. So I was appalled by this news. And now I see this and I ask myself, what is the difference? I don't want to read academic discussions here about the difference beween allowed and not allowed substances. I just want to ask how ANYBODY can justify the use of anything that does THIS to a human body.And anybody who even tries to do so is no different from Saddam H. , who after all, just tried to protect himself and , like the US POTUS warlord, thought that all means were justified.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

 

[Art]

I have been out of this discussion because in my view, it's a side issue. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong period. But when TSM sent me this link, I looked at it and recalled my disgust about one of Saddam's experiments: upon his orders they once sprayed a crowd of Kurds with Sulphuric acid from a helicopter. Now I've got experience with H2SO4 in bulk and t's one of the nastiests stuffs I've seen. So I was appalled by this news. And now I see this and I ask myself, what is the difference? I don't want to read academic discussions here about the difference beween allowed and not allowed substances. I just want to ask how ANYBODY can justify the use of anything that does THIS to a human body.And anybody who even tries to do so is no different from Saddam H. , who after all, just tried to protect himself and , like the US POTUS warlord, thought that all means were justified.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

I fully agree. It is disgusting that this US gov't should condemn Sadam for using WMD against civilians whilst perpetrating this type of mass murder themselves with equally vile weapons hiding behind the fact that they never signed the convention banning their use in civilian areas.
A point, I am sorry to say, some here miss but the rest of the world hasn't.

US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq
The US assault began exactly a year ago
Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.
Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city.
The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm
As with the MK77s mentioned earlier where the military spokesmen were unsure of what had already been admitted and what hadn't, a request for information from the military in Baghdad drew this response

A US military spokesman in Baghdad said earlier on Tuesday he did not recall white phosphorus being used in Fallujah

Seems they're playing it safe these days by falling back on Reagan's old Iran/Contra defence of "I don't remember" despite an earlier admission of their use in Fallujah on the US gov'ts own information web site. Like I said "Liars need good memories"

 

[edward]

I have been out of this discussion because in my view, it's a side issue. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong period. But when TSM sent me this link, I looked at it and recalled my disgust about one of Saddam's experiments: upon his orders they once sprayed a crowd of Kurds with Sulphuric acid from a helicopter. Now I've got experience with H2SO4 in bulk and t's one of the nastiests stuffs I've seen. So I was appalled by this news. And now I see this and I ask myself, what is the difference? I don't want to read academic discussions here about the difference beween allowed and not allowed substances. I just want to ask how ANYBODY can justify the use of anything that does THIS to a human body.And anybody who even tries to do so is no different from Saddam H. , who after all, just tried to protect himself and , like the US POTUS warlord, thought that all means were justified.
http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08

Hmmm I was going to post that link but I was afraid that it might make some of the chicken hawks toss up their din din.

 

[Mercator]

Hmmm I was going to post that link but I was afraid that it might make some of the chicken hawks toss up their din din.

Let's hope so, but they have hardened stomaches.

 

[Evo]

Countless years for sure, your link is from an account of events that took place in 1972.

That's exactly why I chose it, to show this has a long history.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

Yes I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

The Mk-77 is the only incendiary bomb currently in use by the United States military. Another incendiary weapon - white phosphorus - is allegedly being used as an incendiary weapon in the current Iraq War. White phosphorus or 'Willie Pete' is used primarly as a smoke-screening agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.
The footage shows that WP was being used for illumination purposes. Admittedly I have not seen all of the footage as I already mentioned but I did not see it being fired directly at any targets or into buildings as claimed nor have I seen anyone else provide evidence that such happened only protests that it wasn't logical to use it for illumination purposes even though that is clearly what is being shown in the footage cited.

Ofcourse there is this...

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. [my emphasis added]
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004..._504_10_04.txt

It seems that Evo and Russ are the only ones not glossing over the where they specifically state that the WP was used for screening purposes here. Every one else wants to focus on the words "lethal missions" without attention paid to the fact that it states WP was used for "screening" and "flushing out".

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

One: I doubt they could have easily rounded up enough night vision equipment for the number of soldiers involved in the operation. As far as I know night vision isn't standard issue gear.
Two: This is a siege situation we are talking about. In a siege situation your enemy knows you are there and are lying in wait. Even with night vision it would be a bad idea to try sneaking up on an enemy who is waiting for you.
In such a situation it is common to use smoke bombs and flash bangs and the like to disorient your enemy. You run the risk of disorienting your own people as well but the effort should be concerted enough and timed well enough that this doesn't happen.


In the end we have all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP is unacceptable.
The only difference is that some of us believe it was done on purpose and some of us believe it is possible that it may have been done intentionally but have yet to see evidence that convinces us of it.

 

[Evo]

I have been out of this discussion because in my view, it's a side issue. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong period. But when TSM sent me this link, I looked at it and recalled my disgust about one of Saddam's experiments: upon his orders they once sprayed a crowd of Kurds with Sulphuric acid from a helicopter.

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

Now I've got experience with H2SO4 in bulk and t's one of the nastiests stuffs I've seen. So I was appalled by this news.

What news?

And now I see this and I ask myself, what is the difference? I don't want to read academic discussions here about the difference beween allowed and not allowed substances. I just want to ask how ANYBODY can justify the use of anything that does THIS to a human body.And anybody who even tries to do so is no different from Saddam H. , who after all, just tried to protect himself and

Saddam "just tried to protect himself"? Are you serious?

http://www.uruknet.com/?s1=55&p=12676&s2=08[/QUOTE]The link doesn't work. And again, the discussion drops into personal opinion with no hard evidence. You guys need to try to make a case. I'd like to believe you guys, but I'm not seeing anything that backs up what you say. "A reporter that said someone said something". Sorry, that's no proof. "Look a picture of dead people after an attack on insurgents". It's a war.

Have you seen a body that's been blown apart by explosives?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

 

[Evo]

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

Right, he was a saint. My bad.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Right, he was a saint. My bad.

No, the whole war is based on greed and hatred remember?

 

[Skyhunter]

In the end we have all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP is unacceptable.
The only difference is that some of us believe it was done on purpose and some of us believe it is possible that it may have been done intentionally but have yet to see evidence that convinces us of it.

I don't believe our military wanted to harm civilians. However the liberal use of WP was intentional. If I were in the command I may have done exactly as they did. If you read the AAR of the fight for Fallujah, it was very effective, and probably saved the lives of many of our soldiers. Fortunately I am not in the military, so I have the luxury of abhorring what was done.

I just feel that the more people that become conscious of the reality of the Iraq invasion the sooner we will get out of there. What was done in Fallujah was tragic, what is going on in Iraq is criminal, we are there based on lies. Fallujah did not have to happen. I lay the blame for what happened there at the feet of Bush and his administration.

 

[Art]

I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

Okay so by your own admission you did read the piece on your link saying WP can be and is used as an incendiary and so you wrote this knowing it to be wrong and misleading?

Originally Posted by TheStatutoryApe
I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Why do that?

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.

Per the links already posted; shell WP is normally used as an incendiary; per the US gov'ts own website they fired shell WP - End of story.

Burster-type white phosphorus. White phosphorus projectiles are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. They are bursting-tube type projectiles that can be fired with point-detonating (PD) or MTSQ fuzes. The projectile has an incendiary-producing effect and is ballistically similar to the HE projectile. Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect

 

[Anttech]

No, the whole war is based on greed and hatred remember?

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

Is this not a bit Ad Hominem?
Art is presenting a very good arguement, which I aggree with, can you not try and counter his argument rather than appeal to emmotions?
Remember this is a scientific forum

 

[russ_watters]

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

You forgot "on purpose". Saddam intentionally killed civilians.

Are you guys suggesting that the US intentionally used WP as a weapon against civilians?

 

[Art]

You forgot "on purpose". Saddam intentionally killed civilians.
Are you guys suggesting that the US intentionally used WP as a weapon against civilians?

Absolutely. They wouldn't allow ANY males of fighting age to leave. Those that tried to swim away were killed by snipers those that tried to cross the bridges were bombed and those who tried to sit it out were hit by just about everything in the US arsenal including shell WP.

It's a little like if you and I were having a gunfight but I'm not sure what you look like so I drive down your street in a tank, machine gunning every house I pass after first blocking the road to stop anyone leaving, would you consider the death of your neighbours to be accidental. I think not.

If that's not intentional murder what is?

ps They razed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city to the ground and also took over the hospital on the edge of town because they were concerned about the news of the casualities inflaming the rest of Iraq and established sniper positions on the roof and fired on an ambulance which tried to leave which are yet more breachs of the Geneva conventions. But what's new?
According to the August 2002 UN report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

Seems it's about time for bombing, sanctions, invasion and regime change in the US to bring her in line with the UN. Oh but I forgot, that only applies to small 3rd world countries with lots of oil.

Saddam could have learned a lot from these guys.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41F051A7-D85C-4151-B118-B4A9511A573D.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
http://esterrepublic.com/Archives/djamail9.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

60% of those killed in Fallujah are reported to have been children, women or elderly. Many of whom were killed in their own homes as these pics show
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28

So to reiterate my earlier point Yes I am absolutely certain the US thugs who entered Fallujah deliberately killed civilians and those who fired ordinance in from the outside didn't give a **** who they killed. Hey per the earlier link you are so fond of quoting even the battalion doctor lobbed in a few shells for fun.

 

[Burnsys]

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.
The footage shows that WP was being used for illumination purposes. Admittedly I have not seen all of the footage as I already mentioned but I did not see it being fired directly at any targets or into buildings as claimed nor have I seen anyone else provide evidence that such happened only protests that it wasn't logical to use it for illumination purposes even though that is clearly what is being shown in the footage cited

Well. please try to explain this, you have aknowledge that they used WP for illumination acording to the part of the video you saw... then what is it being used for here in the part you didn't see.? look at the picture, are they using it to illuminate?

 

[edward]

In a responce to a post about a jillion pages back inferring that there was a possible lack of night vison equipment in Iraq. A helment mounted night vision monocular device is standard issue in Iraq. You will notice in the video link that every soldier is wearing one.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2682073

Another reason so much WP was used was because we thought that insergents had acquired night vision equipment. When a lot of fire was coming out of an area or building at night the area was socked in with multiple rounds of WP. For that matter, it was done in the daylight also.

AGAIN: The important factor to remember here is that innocent non combatants far outnumbered the actual number of insergents.

We can never defeat terrorists using errorist tactics.

 

[Evo]

Skyhunter, the person that responded to your post in the chemical forum was incorrect. Here is how White phosphorus actually burns. It burns CLOTHING.

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Produ...med/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

 

[Art]

Skyhunter, the person that responded to your post in the chemical forum was incorrect. Here is how White phosphorus actually burns. It burns CLOTHING.
http://www.brooksidepress.org/Produ...med/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html
"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

The autoignition temperature of WP is actually about 30°C in humid air and slightly higher in dry air. If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

The other alternative of course is the US used an illegal blister agent such as mustard gas but I doubt you are suggesting that.

 

[Evo]

If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

Please link to the article that states the above. I've read through a number of medical sites and none agree with what you posted.

From the link I posted above, if it's a cloud - "Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. The effects of this gas can be minimized by placing a moist cloth over the nose and mouth to inactivate the gas and prevent endobronchial irritation. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths. Hypocalcemia associated with cardiac arrhythmia should be corrected by the administration of calcium."

It would be impossible to receive severe burns to the body without burning the clothing, unless someone has developed intelligent WP that somehow mananges to only strike the skin while avoiding clothing "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."

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

 

[Art]

Please link to the article that states the above. I've read through a number of medical sites and none agree with what you posted.
From the link I posted above - "Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. The effects of this gas can be minimized by placing a moist cloth over the nose and mouth to inactivate the gas and prevent endobronchial irritation. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths. Hypocalcemia associated with cardiac arrhythmia should be corrected by the administration of calcium."

Here you go. In this link it actually states 35 C.

Ignition temperature : Ignition temperature or ignition point is the temperature at which the fire starts. Below the ignition temperature, even if a combustible substance is present along with oxygen, the fire will not start. Therefore a substance has to be heated to its ignition temperature before it starts burning. For example, the ignition temperature of white phosphorus is 35°C

http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VIII.htm Can I take it from the doubt you express that you actually do think the US used a blister agent?

 

[Art]

As none of the substantive issues I have raised are being rebutted in a factual and meaningful way unless and until they are I will no longer be responding to posts which simply snipe around the edges or worse are simply fatuous remarks. For an example of what I mean see post #121.

Per Evo's earlier mail let's try to keep the quality of this debate at the standard you would expect on a science forum.

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I find myself wanting to get sucked into this. First, I want to say to Burnsys that it looks, from his photos, like the WP is being used as an obfuscation cloud - which is one of the intended purposes of it stated in one of Evo's links to government sites. I also want to ask what concentration of phosphoric acid is actually enough to start dissolving human tissue. You can drink pure coca cola syrup and it isn't goint to hurt you; even if you inhale it, it will drown you and not dissolve your lungs.

On the other hand, we seem to be hung up on the wrong issue. One side, by alleging illegal conduct on the part of the US, is attempting to make too strong of a case. It's like charging someone guily of manslaughter with murder one - he just ends up back on the street after being acquitted. Chances are, the US forces really were just using this to create a cloud, or possibly to illuminate, or for some other purpose that is legal. Then the other side gets caught up in defending the probably legality of the action and we both end up ignoring the more important issue.

I think that if we can all step back a bit and forget about trying to win these arguments, for which neither side can prevent nothing more than circumstantial and largely biased evidence, and agree that both clouding and illumination can be achieved with agents that have no potential for burning the skin off of people. Whether or not these actions are technically illegal, they probably should be. Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

 

[Evo]

Here you go. In this link it actually states 35 C. http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VIII.htm

No I wasn't questioning the combustion temperature, I was questioning the claim you made

If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

Where are you reading this?

Can I take it from the doubt you express that you actually do think the US used a blister agent?

No, I am not qualified to determine what the circumstances were that caused death from looking at a picture. That would be foolish.

 

[Evo]

Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

Good point. I wonder what the other optionms are that would be considered safe and how well they work.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

Okay so by your own admission you did read the piece on your link saying WP can be and is used as an incendiary and so you wrote this knowing it to be wrong and misleading?

I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Why do that?

You really like to twist people's words around and quote out of context don't you?
First of all yes I read the part that you mentioned. Did you read what I quoted which states that MK77s are supposed to be the only incendiary that is in active inventory?
And I did not write anything to be wrong and misleading, you quoted me out of context. What I did say was "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." The main point being that the manner I saw it used in the video is consistent with it being used for illumination purposes. I did not see any instances where the WP was being shot at targets. If you have any sources that will confirm that this is the case please do so. Pics of bodies by the way will not confirm this unless they are3 followed up by forensic reports showing that they had WP shells fired directly at them [edit: we have already seen that smoke from WP is toxic and smoke munitions and flares and things of the sort can throw off bits of WP though this is not necessarily the intention of it's use]. Please show me pics of this occurring or something. I have read that there are claims that shells were fired directly at targets but there was nothing to substantiate the claims included in what I read.

Well. please try to explain this, you have aknowledge that they used WP for illumination acording to the part of the video you saw... then what is it being used for here in the part you didn't see.? look at the picture, are they using it to illuminate?

Looks to me like some sort of flare like device being shot in the air, floating down, and then a lot of smoke. What am I supposed to see there? Is there something there that the shell was shot directly at? Because I don't see it if that is supposed to be the case. If you can find better pics or referance a site which explains what I am supposed to be seeing there that might be better.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that if we can all step back a bit and forget about trying to win these arguments, for which neither side can prevent nothing more than circumstantial and largely biased evidence, and agree that both clouding and illumination can be achieved with agents that have no potential for burning the skin off of people. Whether or not these actions are technically illegal, they probably should be. Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

I agree that this is the real issue, and well said. I just don't like watching people being unjustly accused of crimes and I think that the accusation of crimes commited is what this thread has become about even if that was not Skyhunter's intentions.

edit...
And if there were crimes commited I would like to see the evidence if anyone can furnish it. I want to know about these things.