—Update—
Now the story on the BBC, “US ‘uses incendiary arms’ in Iraq”.
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.
And on the “independent” also ” US forces ‘used chemical weapons’ during assault on city of Fallujah”.
—End Update–
This is for all the people who are crying crocodiles tears on the dead baby in the comments section linking to an Iraqi Blogger.
Bodies burned without any traces of fire on the clothes and trust me there are many dead babies.
You can watch the documentary in Arabic, English and Italian.
And if you still have the stomach to see more then the images section is here and here and here.
“The truth does matter.”
Not to the Bush administration. Only paying back their campaign financers matters.
“Please provide me with some evidence that WP cannot be used against enemy combatants.”
If I told you I learned it in a class taught by the US military, you are just going to have to trust me sometimes. I have no way to post instruction I received during my enlistments.
From Article 23 of The Hague Convention of 1907
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden —
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
“Maybe you are right and then I will concede the point.”
I’m doubtful. Anyway, I am out of time for the night, but I’ll try to get back to this tomorrow if I’m not too busy.
Jon,
Considering that there are published international treaties regarding this specific matter, your recollection of ‘training’ is not a trump.
If it is a military rule it must be published somewhere. Show me.
You may easily be confusing points of fact. Perhaps you were dozing off during key points of the lecture or your memory is failing you?
Why would the CCW specifically state that military objectives may be targeted with incendiaries? An enemy controlled hill. An enemy controlled building? A base? A trenchline?
Look, even if WP can be used against military targets, it doesn’t mean you can’t make the argument that it was used deliberately against civilians.
Then of course you would have to prove this is the case. The documentary provided nothing in this regard.
WP wouldn’t have caused casualties to people inside of concrete houses. The wounds would look more like puncture wounds within localized severe burns (not entire blackened corpses). The WP itself won’t penetrate deeply, but it can burn through surface.
Smoke from WP would have been irritating to the eyes, but it would not have melted people, etc.
All the documentary proved is that people, including potentially some civilians, died violently during the combat. This is not surprising.
“Considering that there are published international treaties regarding this specific matter, your recollection of ‘training’ is not a trump.”
Well, this is true. You Republicans never did bother using the concept of “expertise” when dealing with situations. In fact, the scientific community is pretty exasperated that the Bush administration completely disregards scientific knowledge when making policy decisions. You didn’t have to tell me that. I already knew.
“If it is a military rule it must be published somewhere. Show me.”
I already showed you, at least in part, why it is illegal conduct. Article 23. We call it infliction of undue suffering. It is cruel and inhumane. Only the lowest of bastards do such things. The weakness of this nation’s leadership has now allowed those low bastards to drag us down to their level. Not sure why this doesn’t bother you, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that you were a sociopath. You seem to lack the capacity to empathize with others. I’m not trying to insult you by saying this, so don’t get bent out of shape. Since I really know nothing about you, I can’t make any other guess as to why you seem to have sociopathic tendencies. Until I can figure out otherwise, I will have to operate on that assumption.
“You may easily be confusing points of fact.”
You must never have experienced military training. It is aimed at a third-grade reading level and I am one of the few people who maxed the ASVAB. If anything, I probably just dozed off from boredom at the point when the instructor said, “But setting people on fire with stuff that can’t be easily extinguished is OK.” Yeah, that’s probably it.
“Why would the CCW specifically state that military objectives may be targeted with incendiaries?”
I feel like I’m just writing to myself over here. Intent is what makes it a crime. It is hard to prove, but not impossible. Again, collect what evidence can be collected and the sane people left in America will make every attempt to inflict justice.
“Look, even if WP can be used against military targets, it doesn’t mean you can’t make the argument that it was used deliberately against civilians.”
When civilians are in the area, it just means that you should be that much more careful. Unless you just don’t care and then whatever.
“Then of course you would have to prove this is the case. The documentary provided nothing in this regard.”
Have you ever seen me defend this shoddy piece of video work? I am pretty certain I haven’t. All I did was make the effort to ensure that any US military personnel understood that use of incendiaries on people was a crime. Other than you and I, the rest of America has probably already forgotten that the video exists. And I’m not far from forgetting it myself. Were you at the battle of Falluja or something?
“Blah blah blah. All the documentary proved is that people, including potentially some civilians, died violently during the combat. This is not surprising.”
Agreed. The surprising part is that the US invaded Iraq at all. I still can’t figure it out, but I’m guessing that it has something to do with this.
The assaults on Fallujah and Najaf were assaults against humanity, civilization, and historic culture. When the US abomination is finally gone from Iraq, there should be a reckoning–of their collaborators, and of the world leaders who pursued this occupation.
Correctamundo as Fonzie used to say. Damn, I’m old.
I stumbled over this passage someone posted on a different blog, which is good cause I hate doing research.
“(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.” (‘Battle Book’ [1999 revision] of the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Chapter Five Part III; Section 5–11.)
I also wanted to say.. damn I have a good memory. And they thought I was sleeping in class. Pshaw.
against personnel?
PRobably meant your own personnel.
Remember, our soldiers are all ignorant rednecks.
“PRobably meant your own personnel.”
It says “personnel targets”.
“Remember, our soldiers are all ignorant rednecks.”
Is that what you think of our soldiers? I always thought our guys were highly trained professionals other than the few sadistic bad apples. That’s why we have officers to keep them in line. Then again, had one Citadel-trained platoon leader who I had to get booted out of the service because the Citadel had hazed anything resembling honor out of the guy, but that’s a story for another time. LT Underpants reminds me of this guy.
The rednecks I have referred to is the half of the electorate stupid enough to vote for someone like Bush… TWICE!
Looking thru some more of these documents is fascinating. It seems Saddam’s WP was classified as a chemical weapon but the US Army’s WP was not.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/postwar/postwar_s02.htm
However, the difference between these chemical warfare agents and other substances not classified as chemical warfare agents (e.g., white phosphorous and napalm) is largely technical and legalistic.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/an_iii/an_nas_iii_s04.htm
THE SEARCH FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
A March 23, 1991, message from the 82nd Airborne Division chemical officer to the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment chemical officer summarized the search for chemical weapons at Tallil Air Base, An Nasiriyah SW ASP, and Khamisiyah:
When the 82nd Abn Div [Airborne Division] initially occupied the sector, Fox vehicles and unit reconnaissance teams checked for evidence of contamination or chemical weapons. No contamination was found. Riot control agent CS was found in the Tall al Lahm [Khamisiyah] ASP (PV3706).[20] White phosphorus rounds were also found. Artillery rounds with fill plugs and central bursters were found. They were marked with a yellow band. They were empty. Other rounds in the area were marked similarly. Fox reconnaissance vehicles determined they contained TNT.[21]
Michael,
Try reading a little closer.
Suggestion to everyone: read attentively.
This link does not support the case that the US military was using a double standard in classifying WP.
I think Mike got confused because the article mentioned WP.
It clearly does, you are the one that needs to read it more carefully. “The team checked for contamination or chemical weapons, NO CONTAMINATION WAS FOUND, it doesn’t say that no chemical weapons were found.
He he,
They were on a military base looking for chemical weapons but all they found were (if I recall accurately) CS, artillery shells, high explosives, WP, etc.
Duh?
Pingback: Global Voices Online » Breaking News
Pingback: Murph