U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

So is this thing a chemical weapon or not?

Bumblebeeboogie post: (copied)
The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a "terribly ill-conceived method," demonstrating an Army interested "only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun."

When are you going to leave those people in Iraq alone (and elsewhere on the planet) and mind your own damn business?

For eight pages, we've been arguing about semantics here. For eight pages, Federal has been parrotting the same tired old argument again and again.

So what if it freaking isn't classified as a chemical weapon by treaties, which are effectively laws?

Yes, we've acknowledged the fact that according to some treaty, white phosphorous was not classed as a chemical weapon because nations didn't want to part with their precious phosphorous.

The hogwash is that white phosphorous, despite being not classed a chemical weapon is clearly a chemical weapon if used against people in the context of the Fallujah claims.

In that case, it is a weapon used to harm people and it acts through chemical reactions.

The argument that should be being [CENSORED] debated about is the US reluctance to sign up to a part of the treaty that the majority of the world has signed up to, limiting the use of white phosphorous

Maybe we should dump some WP on you guys and see whether you'd still want to call it a conventional weapon then.

Above and Beyond the Call of Duty, America?
***************************************

Published on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 by the Guardian/UK
Behind the Phosphorus Clouds are War Crimes Within War Crimes

We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja,

An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets."

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

For eight pages, we've been arguing about semantics here. For eight pages, Federal has been parrotting the same tired old argument again and again.

You may be tired of the truth, but it remains the truth.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

So what if it freaking isn't classified as a chemical weapon by treaties, which are effectively laws?

So start accepting reality already.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, we've acknowledged the fact that according to some treaty, white phosphorous was not classed as a chemical weapon because nations didn't want to part with their precious phosphorous.

Had more to do with the fact that it is absolutely nothing like a chemical weapon.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The hogwash is that white phosphorous, despite being not classed a chemical weapon is clearly a chemical weapon if used against people in the context of the Fallujah claims.

No, the hogwash is your bogus claim to that effect.

In that case, it is a weapon used to harm people and it acts through chemical reactions.

When phosphorus burns in air, it first forms phosphorus pentoxide (which exists as tetraphosphorus decoxide except at very high temperatures):

P4 + 5 O2 → P4O10

However phosphorus pentoxide is extremely hygroscopic (deliquescent) and quickly absorbs even minute traces of moisture to form liquid droplets of phosphoric acid:

P4O10 + 6 H2O → 4 H3PO4 (also forms polyphosphoric acids such as pyrophosphoric acid, H4P2O7)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorous

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The argument that should be being [CENSORED] debated about is the US reluctance to sign up to a part of the treaty that the majority of the world has signed up to, limiting the use of white phosphorous

I've nothing against the US signing it, since we already abide by it.

But the treaty does not limit white phosphorus.

You sir, are shoving words into my mouth and I do not like the taste of your words. I never said I didn't accept that phosphorous wasn't classified as a chemical weapon. I never said it wasn't the truth.

All I said was that Federal keeps parroting the same argument over and over again. That is all.

What I meant was, that argument is over. It's dead. There is nothing more to argue about whether WP isn't a chemical weapon or not. It clearly isn't classified as one. What I'm trying to get people to argue about is whether it SHOULD be RECLASSIFIED as a chemical weapon.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, we've acknowledged the fact that according to some treaty, white phosphorous was not classed as a chemical weapon because nations didn't want to part with their precious phosphorous.

Had more to do with the fact that it is absolutely nothing like a chemical weapon.

Only, if you do not use it as a weapon against people. If you directly dump it on people, you are using it as a weapon.

Right, if you dump WP on a person, how does that person die? Does he burn to death from flames? No. The WP chemically reacts with their body. That is fact. You cannot deny it. It is the truth.

I am advocating a change in WP classification, because it clearly can be a chemical weapon.

oralloy wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

In that case, it is a weapon used to harm people and it acts through chemical reactions.

No, it acts through fire.

Fire does not equate to poison, not matter how much you want it to.

I think I misread the White Phosphorous article on Wikipedia, but that still doesn't change this fact:

Quote:

When phosphorus burns in air, it first forms phosphorus pentoxide (which exists as tetraphosphorus decoxide except at very high temperatures):

P4 + 5 O2 → P4O10

However phosphorus pentoxide is extremely hygroscopic (deliquescent) and quickly absorbs even minute traces of moisture to form liquid droplets of phosphoric acid:

P4O10 + 6 H2O → 4 H3PO4 (also forms polyphosphoric acids such as pyrophosphoric acid, H4P2O7)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorous

If used over a civilian population, as it is claimed it was done in Fallujah, just the slightest bit of moisture and phosphoric acid starts dropping down on people. Acid burns. If that ain't chemical, I don't know what it is. Which is why there is a restriction on WP's use.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The argument that should be being [CENSORED] debated about is the US reluctance to sign up to a part of the treaty that the majority of the world has signed up to, limiting the use of white phosphorous

I've nothing against the US signing it, since we already abide by it.

But the treaty does not limit white phosphorus.

It does.

"The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians."

Quote:

An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets."

Did this come from the same clowns who called napalm a gas and called WP a chemical weapon?

Thermobaric weapons and fuel air explosives are not the same thing.

What was described above was a fuel air explosive. Thermobaric explosives mix a high concentration of aluminum powder into an ordinary high explosive casting (much more than the 20% that is normally mixed in).

"Many explosive fills try to balance the fuel and oxidizer within the same mix," Ward said. "The general principle behind the new weapon is to carry a higher percentage of fuel, and attempt to use available oxygen from the target area to add to the reaction, resulting in a higher overpressure."

Other reported inaccuracies were caused in part, Ward said, by wrongly comparing the BLU-118 to a dissimilar Russian weapon. The Russian weapons used during its occupation of Afghanistan and, more recently, in Chechnya are more similar to a fuel-air explosive. These fuel-air bombs relied on a mist of liquid explosives to provide a secondary detonation.

According to defense officials, fuel-air explosive weapons depend upon a two-stage detonation process to deliver maximum damage. During the first stage, the fuel is spread and combined with oxygen in the atmosphere. A second stage detonator then ignites the fuel-air mixture. Unlike the Russian weapons, the BLU-118 uses a solid explosive that is detonated without previously having been dispersed and mixed with air, thereby making it a single-stage weapon.

The BLU-118 uses its fuel-rich composition to release energy over a longer period than traditional explosives, thereby creating a longer-duration blast effect when detonated in a confined area, such as a cave.

"The blast pressure from a traditional bomb explosive material starts strong but dissipates rapidly, which can result in relatively limited base effects deep within tunnels," said Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell of the office of the Secretary of Defense for public affairs.

"The blast pressure of a thermobaric weapon, which combines a smaller amount of traditional explosive material with fuel enriched compounds (mostly aluminum), begins less strongly but builds within a confined space and extends over longer duration," he said.

This increased blast pressure produces destructive effects over much greater distances within a tunnel or cave.

Well, clearly, what your post indicates is that WP needs a reclassification, not necessarily solely as a chemical weapon, but a reclassification nonethless.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Well, clearly, what your post indicates is that WP needs a reclassification, not necessarily solely as a chemical weapon, but a reclassification nonethless.

It is a smoke device with incidental incendiary properties, and it is classed as a smoke device with incidental incendiary properties.

I don't see the problem with the classification.

oralloy wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Well, clearly, what your post indicates is that WP needs a reclassification, not necessarily solely as a chemical weapon, but a reclassification nonethless.

It is a smoke device with incidental incendiary properties, and it is classed as a smoke device with incidental incendiary properties.

I don't see the problem with the classification.

READ THIS: It may help elucidate the matter for you.

Published on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 by the Independent / UK
US Intelligence Classified White Phosphorus as 'Chemical Weapon'

It's clear, based upon this article, that WP is a chemical weapon and has been classified as such.

The Americans are no better than Saddam, sadly.

After the Gulf War WP was classified as a chemical weapon.

If facts don't change your opinion why should I try to?

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been "incorrectly called chemical weapons."

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.

The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a "terribly ill-conceived method," demonstrating an Army interested "only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun."

what part don't you get?

No, you don't get it. Two questions for you:

1)Why was WP classified as a chemical weapon under Saddam?

2)But not for US troops?

Again, the PENTAGON 'revised' their original classification and DID classify WP as a chemical weapon.

The only banana here is the Banana Republic of the US of A.

englishmajor wrote:

No, you don't get it. Two questions for you:

1)Why was WP classified as a chemical weapon under Saddam?

It wasn't. That document was just anti-Saddam propaganda.

englishmajor wrote:

2)But not for US troops?

Because it isn't a chemical weapon.

englishmajor wrote:

Again, the PENTAGON 'revised' their original classification and DID classify WP as a chemical weapon.

The fact that it was called a chemical weapon in a piece of propaganda does not mean that any pentagon classification was revised.

englishmajor wrote:

The only banana here is the Banana Republic of the US of A.

Nope. We're the empire, not a banana republic.

empire of what? China holds over 200 Billion of US debt. You best be learning Chinese real quick. Actually they are already teaching kids Mandarin in schools on your east coast. What does that tell you?

There is one simple way for the US to decrease very significantly, the plague of terror in the world, and that is just to stop supporting and participating in it. (N. Chomsky, 2002).

You Americans are a legend in your own minds Do you even perceive the world's view of America?