White Phospherous used as a chemical weapon in Iraq - by the United States

[Cryozombie]

You were a chem soldier werent ya Techno?

11Bravo

 

[michaeledward]

I think I have posted about 4 times on this thread that the United States is not a signatory to Protocol III of the CCW.

But, thanks for clarifying that for me.



I'm with Senator McCain on this one .... We're supposed to be better than the other guys.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I take note, my friends, of michael's continual refusal to answer the basic question. "If WP is a chemical weapon, because it causes injury as a result of a chemical reaction, does that not make ANY weapon a chemical weapon, including gunpowder, explosives, napalm, etc".

He keeps falling back on "WP is toxic". We are torturing the definition of "Toxic". The terminal effects are thermal in nature, not toxic. In that sense bullets and gunpowder are extremely toxic as well as explosives. Lead is toxic. What's more, some military high-explosives are extremely toxic (though less "toxic" than the terminal effects of igniting it).

It's all absurd.

 

[michaeledward]

I take note, my friends, of michael's continual refusal to answer the basic question. "If WP is a chemical weapon, because it causes injury as a result of a chemical reaction, does that not make ANY weapon a chemical weapon, including gunpowder, explosives, napalm, etc".

He keeps falling back on "WP is toxic". We are torturing the definition of "Toxic". The terminal effects are thermal in nature, not toxic. In that sense bullets and gunpowder are extremely toxic as well as explosives. Lead is toxic. What's more, some military high-explosives are extremely toxic (though less "toxic" than the terminal effects of igniting it).

It's all absurd.

Okay, sgtmac_46 ..... I'm getting sick to death of these ****ing pissing matches...

You're right ... everyone else is wrong ...

White Phosphorus does not create a chemical reaction that burns human flesh to the bone, as long as oxygen is present.

White Phosphorus does not need to be stored underwater, because the chemical reaction with oxygen is completely harmless.


I just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument.

There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered.

George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, making the country less safe because of the use of WHite Phosphorus; because of continued torture of captives; because of a general lack of obeying the laws of being a decent human citizen.

But what the hell ... you beat michaeledward is a pissing match.



Any one who is interested ... Go to Google - Images - Search on White Phosphorus ..... Sure looks like lead poisoning by bullet to me.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Okay, sgtmac_46 ..... I'm getting sick to death of these ****ing pissing matches...

You're right ... everyone else is wrong ...

White Phosphorus does not create a chemical reaction that burns human flesh to the bone, as long as oxygen is present.

White Phosphorus does not need to be stored underwater, because the chemical reaction with oxygen is completely harmless.

LMFAO...I knew I wouldn't be seeing a direct answer from you. "You're right...High Explosives do not create a chemical reaction that blows human flesh and bone apart.....Gun powder does not create a chemical reaction that fires a "toxic" projectile down ranger, blowing human flesh and bone apart..." It's all distorting reality and torturing the terms, michael, admit it.

I just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument.

There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered.

George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, making the country less safe because of the use of WHite Phosphorus; because of continued torture of captives; because of a general lack of obeying the laws of being a decent human citizen.

But what the hell ... you beat michaeledward is a pissing match.



Any one who is interested ... Go to Google - Images - Search on White Phosphorus ..... Sure looks like lead poisoning by bullet to me.

So your argument is....They won't care if we SHOOT them and if we BLOW them up using high-explosives, but suddenly...use a marking round that burns a couple guys, and WE'RE HISTORY?! The whole idea is ludicrious. Furthermore, the only folks pushing the concept are people like you. You're turning this in to a "Chemical weapons" issue where none existed. If anyone is responsible for making the country less safe, it's you through your torturing of the language and disingenuous propaganda.

The only difference between blowing up an insurgent, shooting them and throwing a WP grenade at him...exists only in your mind. You're the one trying to create an issue where none exists, so ANY fallout as a result of the fabrication of this issue rests firmly on the heads of you and those like you. I find the idea that you think you can manufacture ANY issue you want, any allegation, and declare yourself faultless as to the consequences, while everyone else is liable for any act you decide you disagree with.


I do accept your surrender though.

"If Guns kill people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words." Larry the Cable Guy

 

[michaeledward]

If anyone is responsible for making the country less safe, it's you through your torturing of the language and disingenuous propaganda.

Martial Mods ...

Is this **** acceptable?

 

[Cryozombie]

NO.

I would prefer if all of you calm down, and act civil to one another.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Martial Mods ...

Is this **** acceptable?

For the record, it wasn't ME that started the "YOUR line of argument is making the 'country less safe'.

just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument.

There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered.

George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, making the country less safe because of the use of WHite Phosphorus; because of continued torture of captives; because of a general lack of obeying the laws of being a decent human citizen.

However, I apologize to you, michael, and the moderator if it appeared I was being uncivil. My intent is to pursue the argument, not you personally.

My point is, and let me make this very clear, this is a NON-ISSUE until certain individuals decided to make it an issue for political purposes. There is no, and I repeat NO quantifiable difference between getting shot, getting blown up and getting hit with a WP grenade. If I had to decide which of the three would be the LEAST desireable, I would be hard pressed to pick. Again, I defy anyone to create a quantifiable difference that makes WP a "Chemical weapon", while gunpowder and high-explosives are not.

Once again, WP produces terminal effects by turning chemical potential energy into heat through a reaction with air, bullets produce terminal effects by turning chemical potential energy in to heat, producing expanding gases that produce kinetic energy by pushing a projectile out of a barrel, and explosives produce BOTH kinetic and thermal energy by converting chemical potential energy.

It is clear, Michael, that no one has yet provided a quantifiable difference. Again, I have no interest in engaging in a personal ad hominem debate, as I am quite content to stick the original topic "WP: Chemical weapon?". I think I (and others here) have clearly shown that WP can only be qualified as a chemical weapon by the broadest and most far reaching definition of the word "Chemical weapon" possible, and, further, that expanding and torturing the definition of the word to the point pretty much makes EVERY weapon, short of a baseball bat, a chemical weapon (and I guess you could argue that a baseball bat becomes a chemical weapon if you figure that the terminal effects are caused by chemical reactions being turned in to kinetic energy in the human body).

I do like the assertion that Arab news media isn't "filtered", that's pretty funny.

 

[Tgace]

Is napalm a chemical weapon?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Is napalm a chemical weapon?

Lets see....reacts with oxygen to produce heat through a chemical process......causes burns and terminal injury....it's toxic to the human body....EUREKA....It's must be a chemical weapon. :shrug:

Now, Tgace, you and I jest, but the sad reality is...Some clown will probably use the argument I just made to claim that Napalm IS a chemical weapon.

 

[arnisador]

Napalm? If used against people, maybe...it's incendiary, but like a flamethrower it's based on a chemical reaction. (As Mr. Parsons pointed out, mostthings are.) There is an exception of some sort of flamethrowers, is that right? Why aren't they considered chemical weapons--because it's only the flame, not the chemicals, that are actually in contact with the enemy?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Napalm? If used against people, maybe...it's incendiary, but like a flamethrower it's based on a chemical reaction. (As Mr. Parsons pointed out, mostthings are.) There is an exception of some sort of flamethrowers, is that right? Why aren't they considered chemical weapons--because it's only the flame, not the chemicals, that are actually in contact with the enemy?

Again, the point is that it is not the toxic qualities of Napalm of WP that is being exploited, it is the heat of the chemical reaction. The only way that an argument can be made that WP and Napalm are chemical weapons, is to claim that "Fire" should be classified as "Toxic".

Again, we are stuck on the point of whether "Fire" should be defined as "Toxic". If we answer in the affirmative, we open a whole NEW can of worms. We can define what is toxic, and hence a toxin, as being

"A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins."

or we can go with a broader meaning

"Anything that is injurious, destructive, or fatal"

http://www.answers.com/toxin

The former, however, negates WP being a toxin, the later, on the other hand, makes EVERYTHING pretty much a toxin.

 

[Tgace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force. The offensive use of living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered to be biological warfare rather than chemical warfare. However, the use in war of toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) is considered as chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).

There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:

Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. (Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins and is known for its long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.)

Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.

Viruses, bacteria, or other organisms. Their use is classified as biological warfare.

 

[arnisador]

So, although a fire may be started chemically, it's not toxic...OK, I get it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, although a fire may be started chemically, it's not toxic...OK, I get it.

Well, if you want to call it toxic, simply because it's "Bad for you" and call WP a chemical weapon, because it's "toxic" and produced by a chemical processes, we're back to calling bullets and explosives chemical weapons. I'll let you tell me if you think fire is "toxic" or not. Then we can argue about whether or not ever soldier who fires a gun is using a "chemical weapon".

 

[michaeledward]

This .... from the Pentagon .... you know the building with 4 sides, and a spare ...

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.​

​

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Hey, but what would they know ...

 

[Tgace]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/17/answers_about_white_phosphorus/

Answers about white phosphorus
November 17, 2005

Q. What is it?

A. A solid, waxy manmade substance that smells like garlic, ignites spontaneously at about 86 degrees Fahrenheit, and produces intense heat, bright light, and thick smoke.

Q. What does it do?

A. Exposure may cause burns, skin irritation, and damage to organs or bones. It burns until deprived of oxygen.

Q. What is its primary use?

A. Combat troops use it as a smoke screen to conceal movement and to illuminate large areas.

Q. Did the US military use it in Iraq?

A. The Pentagon admitted last week to using white phosphorus while fighting the insurgency in Fallujah in November 2004, but ''very sparingly" to illuminate combat areas. Military officials now confirm it was used as an ''incendiary weapon," but as a conventional, rather than chemical weapon.

Q. Is that against the law?

A. The use of white phosphorus as a conventional weapon is not outlawed or banned by any convention. The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians or against military targets amid concentrations of civilians. The United States did not sign convention protocols.

SOURCES: US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, BBC, National Safety Council

 

[Cryozombie]

This .... from the Pentagon .... you know the building with 4 sides, and a spare ...

​

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Hey, but what would they know ...

Hey wait, Im cornfused now... So what you are saying is that Iraq DID have chemical weapons all along???

 

[Tgace]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

WP - the arguments

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.

Tactical use of WP

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".

 

[Tgace]

Everything you ever wanted to know about incendiary weapons.

The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons, and their use against civilians.

The United States is not a party to this Protocol.

According to an analysis by the US Department of Defense's office for Arms Control Implementation and Compliance, "incendiary weapons have significant potential military value, particularly with respect to certain high-priority military targets. Incendiaries are the only weapons which can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets such as biological weapons facilities which require high heat to eliminate bio-toxins. To use only high explosives would risk the widespread relase of dangerous contaminants with potentially disastrous consequences for the civilian population. Certain flammable military targets are also more readily destroyed by incendiaries. For example, a fuel depot could require up to eight times the bombs and sorties to destroy using only high explosives rather than incendiaries. Such an increase means a significantly greater humanitarian risk of collateral damage. The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-high priority military targets such as these at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality which governs the use of all weapons under existing law."