Evidence Of US Use Of Chemical Weapons On Iraqi Civilians...

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

Mcgentrix, how Ugly American of you. What does this war crime have to do with 911 or Daniel Pearl? Your insinuation that we who are horrified by American atrocities are not equally horrified by 911 is typical Bushit. Not only do you condone war crimes but you pretend you're on the high moral ground as well. Typical Bushit. No wonder you Bushies have lost the hearts and minds of the American people.

We don't know yet whether the accounts are true or accurate, but attention is quickly swivelling to the incident and we will find out.

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.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

Some of the heaviest damage apparently was incurred Monday night from air and artillery attacks that coincided with the entry of ground troops into the city. U.S. warplanes dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs on the city overnight, and artillery boomed throughout the night and into the morning.

"Usually we keep the gloves on," said Army Capt. Erik Krivda, of Gaithersburg, the senior officer in charge of the 1st Infantry Division's Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. "For this operation, we took the gloves off."

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

What terminology one wants to use to label weapons seems rather the least important aspect of the matter.

Is it any more agreeable to see your children or grandchildren hit by phosphorous than by antrax?

What would be worse...to see one's daughter hit by a phosphorous weapon (or napalm) or to witness her being gang-raped? That such a choice isn't clear ought to suggest that there's a pretty fukking big moral problem with the manufacture, sales, and use of such weapons. What do we make of people who "love" such weaponry? What do we make of a nation who will not agree to prohibit the use of such weapons against civilians?

Quote:

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article325757.ece

Is it any more agreeable to see your children or grandchildren hit by phosphorous than by antrax?

What terminology one wants to use to label weapons seems rather the least important aspect of the matter.

What do we make of a nation who will not agree to prohibit the use of such weapons against civilians?

Quote:

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article325757.ece

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] 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."

So, there's no problem then if phosphorous weaponry is used on American troops?

Just a theoretical point...if some mad soldier poured Draino down the throat of a Muslim who maybe said a nasty thing about the Bible...would that constitute a chemical weapon?

First it was denied we used it, then it is only for illumination purposes so it wasn't a chemical weapon, now we have come down, it is not illegal because we didn't sign any treaty and we didn't purposely target civilians anyway-if they got hurt, well, tough luck.

What makes this so hypercritical is that we said it that it was a chemical weapon when Saddam used it and it was a bad thing. Now just because we didn't set out to harm civilians even though we knew they were there to get hurt, it is not now a bad thing.

I don't see how we have any credibility when we talk about other countries using chemical weapons or abusing prisoners when we do the same things.

revel wrote:

First it was denied we used it, then it is only for illumination purposes so it wasn't a chemical weapon, now we have come down, it is not illegal because we didn't sign any treaty and we didn't purposely target civilians anyway-if they got hurt, well, tough luck.

Where did we deny using it?

The first response I heard was when they were claiming that it was only used for illumination.

It isn't illegal even if we signed the treaty. And we didn't target civilians.

My bad, we denied using it except as illumation purposes, but that turned out to be a lie.

revel wrote:

What makes this so hypercritical is that we said it that it was a chemical weapon when Saddam used it and it was a bad thing. Now just because we didn't set out to harm civilians even though we knew they were there to get hurt, it is not now a bad thing.

It is not a chemical weapon. If Saddam targeted civilians with it, it was a bad thing.

Once again, Pentagon classified it as a chemical weapon. It don't make any more or less of a chemical weapon if you target civilians or ememies.

If he targeted combatants with it, it is not such a bad thing.

You seem to miss the point, it don't matter in the long run if we didn't set out to target civilians with it. We used in a city where there were women and children and other non combantants. They were hurt because of it.

revel wrote:

I don't see how we have any credibility when we talk about other countries using chemical weapons or abusing prisoners when we do the same things.

We haven't used chemical weapons since WWI, and even then we did it reluctantly.

Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns.

You seem to miss the point, it don't matter in the long run if we didn't set out to target civilians with it. We used in a city where there were women and children and other non combantants. They were hurt because of it.

We used WP which is classified by Pentagon as a chemical weapon.

Quote:

Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns.

source