Quote:

[size=18] US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq[/size]

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.

Transmission of the documentary comes a day after the arrival of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on a five-day official visit to Italy.

It also coincides with the first anniversary of the US-led assault on Falluja, which displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

The documentary was shown on Rai's rolling news channel, with a warning that the some of the footage was disturbing.

The future of the 3,000-strong Italian peacekeeping contingent in Iraq is the subject of a political tug-of-war, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.

[b]'Destroyed evidence'[/b]

The documentary begins with formerly classified footage of the Americans using napalm bombs during the Vietnam war.

It then shows a series of photographs from Falluja of corpses with the flesh burnt off but clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

Last December, the US state department issued a denial of what it called "widespread myths" about the use of illegal weapons in Falluja.

"Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," the US statement said.

However, the Rai film also alleges that Washington has systematically attempted to destroy filmed evidence of the alleged use of white phosphorus on civilians in Falluja.

Italian public opinion has been consistently against the war and the Rai documentary can only reinforce calls for a pullout of Italian soldiers as soon as possible, our correspondent says.

Both the Italian government and opposition leaders are talking about a phased withdrawal in 2006.

President Talabani and the US say the continued presence of multi-national forces in Iraq is essential.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm]BBC News[/url]

Its war. War is dirty. Scoundrels are scoundrels.

Saddam used chemical weapons. And the 'liberators' do so too.

What liberation?

Grrrr!

yup. Should look at both sides.

There may be a perfectly logical explanation for those bodies being chemically burnt.

No, there must be another one aswell, not just the explanation that says that chemical weapons were used...

Probably is one... But I would not give it much credibility.

I'll take alqaeeda into a separate topic...

Discuss that there.

[edit]

Topic on Alqaeda:

http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=865

Quote:

[size=18]US used white phosphorus in Iraq[/size]

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".

[b]'Incendiary'[/b]

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

[b]'Particularly nasty'[/b]

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm]BBC News[/url]

Not got time to comment....

Quote:

[size=18]White phosphorus: weapon on the edge[/size]

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.

The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

[b]'Shake 'n Bake'[/b]

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage.

"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 where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out," the article said.

In another passage the authors noted that they could have used other smoke munitions and "saved our WP for lethal missions".

A word about the term "shake and bake." Anyone with a family to feed in the US knows what this term, properly "Shake 'n Bake, means. Made by Kraft, it is a seasoning which is shaken onto chicken before baking. Its use gives the article the smack of reality. It's the kind of thing US soldiers would say.

[b]Vietnam precedent[/b]

This tactic of forcing opponents out of cover is not new and should not really have come as a surprise. An article looking back at the Vietnam war published in 1996 by a US armoured unit (1st Battalion, 69th Armor) referred to "Willie Pete" weapons and their use in getting North Vietnamese troops to leave their positions:

"Our normal procedure was to fire these things at a hillside as soon as possible in order to get them out of the fighting compartment."

One wonders of course if, in Falluja, WP was used more directly to kill insurgents and not just to flush them out. In battle, soldiers take short cuts and this seems an obvious one.

[b]Embed report[/b]

Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there.

He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire:

"The boom kicked the 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."

The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.

[b]Chemical Weapons Convention[/b]

The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

[b]WP - the arguments[/b]

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

Critics claim that the US used chemical weapons in Falluja, on the grounds that it is the toxic properties which cause the harm. The UK's Guardian newspaper for example said: "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it."

There is an intense debate on the blog sites about this issue. "It's not a chemical weapon" says Liberal Against Terror. "CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties," says Daily Kos.

[b]Tactical use of WP[/b]

The other argument is about the use of WP as a weapon.

The initial denials from the Pentagon suggest a certain hesitation, embarrassment even, about such a tactic. Some decisions must have been taken in the past to limit its use in certain battlefield scenarios (urban warfare for example). It is not used against civilians.

However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."

This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Notwithstanding the US position on the Convention, the use of WP against insurgents within Falluja does at least bring the issue into discussion, though one should note that the soldiers who wrote the Field Artillery article do say that their unit "encountered few civilians in its attack south".

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm]BBC News[/url]

Quote:

[size=18]Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons[/size]

An Iraqi human rights team has gone to the city of Falluja to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by US forces, a minister has told the BBC.

Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says it will be some time before the human rights team reports back. ...

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4442156.stm]BBC News[/url]

Too little too late?

its been over a year since the main assault. How much evidence would still be lyign around, and not brried? (I do not think they will dig up the graves... just look at the surviving people that were burnt)

Thos eminds me of that infamous pic of that naked girl runniign down the road in vietnam. some of her skin burnt off.

Very saddening.

Quote:

[size=18]UK used white phosphorus in Iraq[/size]

UK troops have used white phosphorus in Iraq - but only to create smokescreens, Defence Secretary John Reid has said.

MPs are worried by the admission by US forces that they used the controversial substance in the Iraqi city of Falluja - something they had previously denied.

White phosphorus can burn flesh and some MPs say its use will hand a propaganda victory to Iraqi insurgents.

Both the US and UK Governments deny using the weapon against civilians but there are calls for a UN inquiry.

[b]Against civilians?[/b]

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

The US State Department originally denied it had been used in last year's assault on Falluja, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents west of Baghdad.

But on Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable said the substance had been used as an "incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".

Col Venable also said white phosphorus was not a banned chemical weapon.

An Italian documentary team has claimed it was used against civilians - but this is strongly denied by the US.

Critics say Falluja was a "civil society" so civilians could have been affected even if not directly targeted.

[b]Smokescreen[/b]

Downing Street also stressed that insurgents in Falluja had been offered talks before last year's attack on the city.

White phosphorus is part of the arsenal available to British troops - essentially for illumination and smoke.

The defence secretary said he could not answer for the US use of the substance.

But he said: "We do not use white phosphorus, or indeed any other form of munition or weaponry, against civilians...

"We do not use it for anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action."

But former Defence Minister Doug Henderson said the UK should try to find an alternative.

The substance could burn when it fell from the sky even when it was used to create smoke, he said.

[b]Treaty change?[/b]

Fellow anti-war Labour MP Alan Simpson told BBC News there was hypocrisy over the issue as Tony Blair had sent troops to war over Iraq's alleged chemical weapons.

"What we are forced to address is that in a post-war occupation of Iraq, the coalition forces - British and American - have also used chemical weapons."

Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said white phosphorus was defined as an "incendiary", not a chemical weapon.

He suggested treaties on chemical weapons should be strengthened so they covered the substance.

Mr Gapes said the way the Americans had mishandled the issue by initially denying using white phosphorus was a "public relations disaster for them".

[b]'Propaganda'[/b]

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the denial would convince sceptics there was something to hide.

"A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds," said Sir Menzies.

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

Lib Dem MEPs' leader Graham Watson is calling for a United Nations inquiry into the extent to which white phosphorus has been used.

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Liam Fox said there needed to be more openness from the Pentagon.

But he added: "Although white phosphorus is a brutal weapon, we need to remember that we were talking about some pretty brutal insurgents."

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm]BBC News[/url]

So even if saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, we would have been deeply hypocritical.

Yeah. go to remove WMD. But at the same time use chemical weapons ourselves.

This chemical is not illegal in international warfare through a technicality.

and the smokescreen excuse is so lame. 'Lets create a smokescreen through those people there'.

And some embedded kourno's have reported a shake and bake policy used by some troops (admittedly US forces, but the UK wouls have been just as bad)

where were the mainstream press before the bloggers picked up on this?

There is a diference when reporters say somethingmay have happened according to unreliable sources...

...and when they categorically state something did positively absolutely happen.

The second has mpore impact. It has more authority.

The info here is not new. It was reported earlier by smaller soures. However now it has been brought to the public atention by the larger media organisations. Atleast here in the UK.

Well the UK is starting to phase a pullout starting in May.

And from what I heard there are some rumours of plans in the US to start before end of 2007 aswell.

I think it was on newsnight last night (18 november).

Iraq for the near future is beyond hope.

I feel for everyone living there.

Quote:

'government with a substantial degree of legitimacy'

You serious?

And these guys are using torture even before the foreigners have left.

The Iraqis may have some pride which may ell them, but the current leadership was getting fat in exile before. It is not in touch with the people.

The terrorists are hiding within the community. There is sympathy with them, even if they seem to be almost exclusively killing Iraqi's.

And on the other side, the terrorists ARE the government. there has been a load of abuse catalogued by the relevant agencies. In Baghdad, the police seems to like using drills on people...

If/when the Americans leave, the gov will be overthrown. maybe even immediately. Not by sunnis. they have probably been broken, and will probably be bit players, but by the shias themselves.

They are biding their time.

It will be absolute chaos.

Yes you have some very good points.

However I am far more pessimistic.

Maybe its the way I see things.

The gov has no 'legitimacy' in the sunni eyes. But they are broken.

The shias also have many factions. However they know the Americans must leave. So they are currently united.

Soon the glue will be torn off.

For instance there were rumours a few months ago of Muqtada al Sadr switching alliance from thr Ayatollah to the sunnis over the constitution.

There are a lot of Shia 'leaders' who were fattening themselves previously. They are tolerated because of the greater cause. They will be dealt with later...

Or I may be seeing too much into it.

Besides ven shias do not wanna be ruled from Iran... soe factions ahve their powerbases over the border.