|
Please tell me we didn't do that in Iraq (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
So, this actually happened?!?! |
And why is that so hard to believe? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
so much for bringing justice and freedom to a country eh?:rolleyes: |
Anyone with a single braincell knew before the war even started that there weren't any benevolent motives behing it. ;) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And why is that so hard to believe? |
I guess it's not. It's just that everyone that replied basically said it was most likely untrue |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
What about WMDs? |
I was refering to adjectives used.
WMD's do count. This is a broad term since it includes nuclear, biological and chemical.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Yeah, but I think the knee-jerk response may have been a little over the top. War is an ugly thing. |
What works here is the reliance that people have on the media to bring them the truth as the administration wants you to hear or see it.
Since none of us on this board have been to Iraq to confirm that there were civilian deaths, including those deaths that arose from WP use or any other weapons, that violate international laws, treaties or likewise then no one can say that they believe that their use was not brought upon a population. Even if the US did not sign off nor practices Protocol III, it does not excuse it or anyone.
Then again the US predicates its own policy anyway so anything we say or do is moot.
So since we rely on the "embedded" reporters then I guess we have to believe them and all other "non-reliable" news is not news. That's silly since non-established news outlets are not trying to sell you a story and a bottle of shampoo or a new type of cereal during their hour or so of "news".
Knee jerk it isn't. You've seen my posts and if you've didn't then go back and read.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Yes Virginia, they really did use White Phosphorous:
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 (high explosives). We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
Field Artillery Magazine March-April 2005 Edition page 26 first column bottom left
November 08, 2005
Shake and Bake in Falluja
Posted by Casey Khan at November 8, 2005 02:20 PM
In the article mentioned below, the government is naturally not forthcoming in its justification for its alleged white phosphorus [WP] use on Falluja. While WP is used to mark targets, it is most effective in marking during daylight operations. WP mortar and artillery rounds emit a large cloud of WP smoke which detonate delayed, on impact, or just above the target. WP rounds help forward observers and F18s reference their high explosive rounds [HE] in the day. Illumination of enemy positions at night is best done by a separate type of round known as an illumination round [Illum]. Illum rounds eject a projectile well above the target area emitting a light carried by parachute with what I think is white phosphorus. Illum rounds in and of themselves are pretty harmless to troops, which is why the government wants you to think this is merely what they were doing. WP rounds however are extremely deadly laying waste to anything in its path. Just imagine a substance that easily melts through steel burning through a body. As far as I know it is considered by international laws of war, to be unethical to intentionally drop WP on personnel.
In proving this war crime, one would need access to the radio communication of the mortar and artillery battery fire direction centers [FDC] at Falluja to establish who made the requests for WP and in what capacity. If WP was requested during fire missions as a means to mark targets for HE use, then I think there is no case. If WP was requested as a "fire for effect" [FFE] on a particular area, especially in an urban environment, then a case could be made for a war crime. Establishing FFE would entail that they were using WP as more than a target marking mechanism. The only use for WP during an FFE is against personnel. In fact WP during "fire for effect" is often done in a mix with HE giving the combined effect of explosive shrapnel with the melting of flesh. This is known as "shake and bake" which is considered an international war crime. [Unlike Abu Gharib, establishment of this war crime will mean that officers heads will roll. Call for fire lines are well monitored by officers in the field and what types of rounds used during the operation are well controlled by officers. It will be tough for higher ups to duck out of this one blaming it on Lance Corporal Schmukatelli.]
If you ask me, I don't see much difference between WP and HE as they both kill, mutilate and destroy. There may be a case that the tactical use of "shake and bake" is justified in a truly just war scenario, but only in a just war and never when innocent civilians are in the way. [What if WP were your last rounds available for use in a lawful defense against a communist human body wave.] The ultimate war crime here is the seige of Falluja. The tactical employments merely measure the level of brutality that the crime was committed.
Shake and Bake in Falluja
Back in the 70's and 80's in the US there was a product for seasoning chicken prior to cooking. You inserted your chicken part in a bag with seasoning and shook it until all the seasoning covered the part. Hence the use of the term "shake and bake" for all you non-American military types.
I'd hate to see if they use words like Oreo, M&M or Frosted Flakes. |
Gotta love them soldiers, they make me warm and fuzzy inside....not. But listen to this sick $%!*:
| quote: | "you know I'm just back from Iraq and I'm acting a little crazy... in Iraq we can do whatever. You think they put all that on the news? Man ask anybody we rape those bitches over there and we take their men and blow their brains out just like that and nobody ever knows."
US Soldiers in St. Louis Admit to Rape and Murder in Iraq |
And we're supposed to believe that WP was not used like it is hyped up to be. Funny how we're thousands of miles apart and it doesn't hurt us to see or hear about what's going on.
Read what others have to say:
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
In case anyone's missed it, the U.S. military has admitted to using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon:
| quote: | quote:
"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."
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Prev...5/PAGE24-30.pdf |
And more on "shake and bake":
| quote: | quote:
Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
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.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/200...0_504_10_04.txt |
And more evidence of its use surfacing:
| quote: | quote:
The 60mm mortars from Alpha Company, 1-508th Infantry, were tasked to provide immediate indirect fire support onto known and suspected targets. Upon reaching their planned mortar firing point, the section immediately dismounted their HMMWV (high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle) and conducted an emergency occupation. The section immediately received a call for fire from their forward observers. Within 60 seconds of occupation, the section was placing accurate high explosive (HE) and white phosphorus (WP) rounds onto and in the vicinity of the Iraqi observations posts [...]
The Iraqis in one observation post attempted to flee but were fixed with white phosphorus fires. As they attempted to flee again, white phosphorus rounds impacted the vehicle and set it on fire. The section continued to fire a mix of high explosive and white phosphorus rounds into the objective area. The section fired more than 80 rounds in support of the mission. Upon receiving the order to displace and reorganize for the movement back to the battalion assembly area, the 105s, 120s and 60s quickly broke their systems down and moved out. The rifle companies continued to provide suppressive fire onto the objectives.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic..._93/ai_n6366546 |
White phosphorous used as a chemical weapon is some seriously nasty and deadly :
http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm
So while it is true that it is technically not a banned substance, it ing should be. Had anyone known what this stuff does as a weapon, they surely would have called for an international ban on it.
Regardless, my first post stands - what moral authority ground do we have to stand on now if we did nothing but lambast Saddam for using chemical weapons to kill thousands of people himself, only to turn around and perform the very same actions on not just insurgents, but innocent civilians and children? |
Thanks MisterOpus1.
So Shakka, if this trend continues where people believe that something like the use of white phosphorus is overblown or overhyped then maybe just maybe you can buy a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. So I leave you with this food for thought:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
"History is written by the winners."
"Never underestimate the power of denial."
(I forgot who originally said these) |
Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter
African proverb
In war, truth is the first casualty
Aeschylus
All warfare is based on deception
Sun Tzu
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler
|
|
|
| Shakka |
Leaving me with a quote from Shaolin Z ain't all that compelling. What would you have me do with it? Want a cookie?
I just gave you the objective analysis based on the evidence at hand and the treaty (that was not signed by the US). If you can show clear factual evidence to the contrary--i.e. that concentrations of civilians were directly targeted for extermination via white phosphorus, then you'll have more of a leg to stand on. Until then, I'm afraid all you can to is bitch, moan and kvetch. As of now, I'm afraid the worst you can do is say that it was used to "smoke 'em out of their caves," something that we've heard about since day 1. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
If you can show clear factual evidence to the contrary--i.e. that concentrations of civilians were directly targeted for extermination via white phosphorus, then you'll have more of a leg to stand on. |
You don't have to directly target civilians with incendiary munitions for it to be classified as a banned chemical weapon under Protocol III:
| quote: | 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. |
In other words, if you know that there are going to be civilians near the chosen military target and there exists the chance that they may be harmed with the use of a chemical such as White Phosphrous, then the use of such a weapon is banned. As civilians were badly burned and killed by the use of WP in Fallujah, I'd say that the military objective was "located within a concentration of civilians", that it wasn't "clearly separated from the concentration of civilians" and that not "all feasible precautions [were] 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". The way that White Phosphrous was used in Fallujah, if the reports are accurate and my interpretation is correct, falls outsite the scope of its legitimate use under Protocol III. It was used indiscriminatly in an area populated by civilians. The US forces, for all intents and purposes, used a chemical weapon in Iraq.
Now I'm prepared to acknowledge the fact that I'm reading this situation incorrectly. If civilian casualties in Fallujah were non-existant or, at best, "negligable", or if my reading of the Protocol is incorrect, then I'm willing to retract what I said. As I see it now, however, there really doesn't seem to be much ambiguity to this issue at all.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I wasn't trying to "explain" away civilian casualties as justifiable
"collateral damage". I was truthfully attempting to describe the situation as circumstances dictate: collateral damage with conventional weaponry. |
But the Protocol is fairly explicit about the line that divides WP (and other incendiary agents) as a "conventional weapon" and as a "chemical weapon". The use of White Phosprous - as a smokescreen, or even, in certain circustances, as an aggressive weapon upon a specific military target - is permitted, but only where the risk to civilians is negligible or where "the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities" (Article I (b(ii)). Could you say that this was the case in Fallujah?
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
They can any less or more harmful than chemical weapons or any type of weaponry depending upon its application. I never claimed that they were any less harmful. A .22 caliber can be as harmful as a white phosphorous round depending upon how you use it.
But how does a "chemical engineer" differentiate the chemical reactions of high explosives any differently than incendiary rounds such that it constitutes as a "chemical weapon" whereas high explosives does not? Is mace or tear gas a chemical weapon??? By claiming that it is a chemical weapon you're attempting to tap into the stygma associated with universally reviled chemical and biological weapons such as anthrax, sarin, etc., when in fact you would be misrepresenting the evidence to further your cause.
In the 70's there was moral outrage at the use of napalm because it looked "worse" than bullets or bombs. When they replaced napalm with cluster bombs the protests stopped despite the fact that they were far more indiscriminate and lethal than napalm ever was. The real issue behind this incident isn't the nature of the weaponry, the real issue is the accepted collateral damage associated with using this weaponry. After all a 2000lb bomb would have the same affect of killing nearby citizens. |
Every weapon used in a war is going to be destructive: it will kill and maim, that's what it's designed for. The reason that certain weapons are banned, in my opinion at least, is to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction. The death from exposure to WP seems to be a lot more horrific (slow burning) than the average death from a bullet or explosive ordinance, in which death is more likely to be instantaneous. It's not so much a matter of the quantitative power of these weapons that has led to their ban in conventional conflict (although that would certainly be a consideration), but rather the qualitative effect. We recognise that to kill a man slowly and painfully is much worse than killing him quickly and mercifully, even though the end result is the same. While all weapons will produce the same end result (i.e. death and injury) it's the manner in which they do so that makes their use comparitively more or less palletable in conflict.
(And don't get me started on cluster bombs. I don't think many people on here would argue that their use should be severely restricted in combat, especially in civilian areas, if not banned outright.)
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Which was not signed by the U.S. |
Which does not change a ing thing. North Korea isn't a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Act - would that make their production or use of nuclear weapons any more acceptable? |
|
|
| Lover Boy |
This is what I hate about political forums. The right wingers justify everything their governments do for "freedom" but if a terrorist sets off an indiscriminate weapon such as a bomb, that's the most evil thing known to them.
Hate breeds hate, if you kill a man's family because of "collateral damage" then he kills a dozen civilians with a bomb, what's the difference? He knows what he's doing, he knows innocents are going to die, so do the American military.
As it said in 24 series 2, if a enemy barracks is next to a hospital they still bomb it, just as a terrorist wants to get his message across and he has to draw attention to his cause by killing innocents.
I can't wait to be flamed for this :p |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lover Boy
As it said in 24 series 2, if a enemy barracks is next to a hospital they still bomb it, just as a terrorist wants to get his message across and he has to draw attention to his cause by killing innocents.
|
"a terrorist wants to get his message across and he has to draw attention to his cause by killing innocents."
"he HAS to" !!?? "he HAS to" !!??
Holy crap! Have we forgotten Ghandi? Martin Luther King Jr.? Buddha? Jesus? Martin Luther? Mother Theresa? Upton Sinclair? Any number of other people who have strived to change the system, right a wrong, or "draw attention" without blowing up??
No terrorist has to kill innocents. Terrorists who kill innocents by choice have made a deplorable and hideous decision.
Killing innocents and bombing a barracks next to a hospital are different things. While the end result may be the same: the death of innocents, the targets are different.
The terrorist specifically targetted innocents, the mission planners for the bombing targetted (hopefully) the barracks.
Both actions are violent, have an end result that results in saddness, and are things that most would rather not happen.
Whether or not they are WRONG is dependant are your point of view.
At the end, though, the terrorist and the soldier are not the same. The bombing of a barracks and the intended killing of innocents are not the same.
For the above statement a terrorist is one who purposely kills others who have not chosen to fight, ie civilians/innocent; and a soldier is one who intends to fight/kill others who have chosen to fight, in other words: other soldiers. |
|
|
| Lover Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
For the above statement a terrorist is one who purposely kills others who have not chosen to fight, ie civilians/innocent; and a soldier is one who intends to fight/kill others who have chosen to fight, in other words: other soldiers. |
Your right, i'm sorry the killing of innocents is never right. I made the wrong point.
If my family were killed by WP or any other means because a foreign force was trying to subdue rogue elements in my country, I think i'd probably end up joing the rebels.
And for every Martin Luther King Jr. there's a Malcolm X or for every Ghandi there's a Mangal Pandey. Pacifists never win at the start, they only bring people to their side when they are sick of the endless bloodshed. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But the Protocol is fairly explicit about the line that divides WP (and other incendiary agents) as a "conventional weapon" and as a "chemical weapon". The use of White Phosprous - as a smokescreen, or even, in certain circustances, as an aggressive weapon upon a specific military target - is permitted, but only where the risk to civilians is negligible or where "the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities" (Article I (b(ii)). Could you say that this was the case in Fallujah?
|
Yea when I put justifiable collateral damage in quotes I thought I was implying that their use against civilians was unjustifiable.
| quote: |
Every weapon used in a war is going to be destructive: it will kill and maim, that's what it's designed for. The reason that certain weapons are banned, in my opinion at least, is to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction. The death from exposure to WP seems to be a lot more horrific (slow burning) than the average death from a bullet or explosive ordinance, in which death is more likely to be instantaneous. It's not so much a matter of the quantitative power of these weapons that has led to their ban in conventional conflict (although that would certainly be a consideration), but rather the qualitative effect. We recognise that to kill a man slowly and painfully is much worse than killing him quickly and mercifully, even though the end result is the same. While all weapons will produce the same end result (i.e. death and injury) it's the manner in which they do so that makes their use comparitively more or less palletable in conflict.
|
No need to waste text on me, I agree with the 3rd protocol. I simply wanted the "chemical" taken out of descriptions of WP as a "chemical weapon". I mean what if it had been used against a legitimate military target or even as illumination or smokescreen? Would people still be calling it a chemical weapon? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I understand your point of view occ (although I don't agree with it), what I don't get is why you're so upset about white phosphorous being labelled a "checmical weapon." |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Leaving me with a quote from Shaolin Z ain't all that compelling. What would you have me do with it? Want a cookie? |
Don't quit your day job. Your career as a comedian will be short lived.
| quote: | | I just gave you the objective analysis based on the evidence at hand and the treaty (that was not signed by the US). |
Are you implying that since the US did not sign Protocols III and IV of the Convention on Conventional Weapons that this give the US carte blanche?
| quote: | | If you can show clear factual evidence to the contrary--i.e. that concentrations of civilians were directly targeted for extermination via white phosphorus, then you'll have more of a leg to stand on. |
I have no access to classified military documents.
Unless you have positive proof that WP was not used on non-combatants and civilians, you have no leg to stand on.
| quote: | | Until then, I'm afraid all you can to is bitch, moan and kvetch. As of now, I'm afraid the worst you can do is say that it was used to "smoke 'em out of their caves," something that we've heard about since day 1. |
Have a nice day believing that no Iraqi civilians were killed during so called "shake and bake" operations.
Must make you all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that GI's can actually discern between combatant and non-combatant through all that WP smoke. |
|
|
|
|
