White Phosphorus used as a Chemical Weapon?

[Matteo Martini]

From the news:
" But the documentary Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, broadcast yesterday by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, suggested the shells were commonly used and killed an unspecified number of civilians. Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by treaty."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article325757.ece
http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/10/stories/2005111006541600.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051108&articleId=1213
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

PDF with photos:
http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0305/us_used_chemical_weapons_in_iraq.pdf

 

[Cylinder]

The indiscriminate use of any weapon against civilians is pretty much banned by treaty. If you indiscriminately poke civilians with pointy sticks you are violating the laws and customs of war. Every weapon used in warfare since Nagasaki can be called a chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is not banned on the battlefield. Tracer rounds, star shells and incendiary anti-personnel artillery rounds and bombs are all legitimate weapons in battle.

Using non-combatant civilian dwellings, areas and facilities as fighting positions is a grave crime as an act of perfidy under the laws and customs of war. Civilian deaths in such an engagement are a direct result of such acts.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The indiscriminate use of any weapon against civilians is pretty much banned by treaty. If you indiscriminately poke civilians with pointy sticks you are violating the laws and customs of war. Every weapon used in warfare since Nagasaki can be called a chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is not banned on the battlefield. Tracer rounds, star shells and incendiary anti-personnel artillery rounds and bombs are all legitimate weapons in battle.

Using non-combatant civilian dwellings, areas and facilities as fighting positions is a grave crime as an act of perfidy under the laws and customs of war. Civilian deaths in such an engagement are a direct result of such acts.

However, according to www.iraqbodycount.org, more than 30% of all civil deaths are caused by American soldiers.
Is it true?

" US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. "
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

 

[WildCat]

From the news:
" But the documentary Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, broadcast yesterday by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, suggested the shells were commonly used and killed an unspecified number of civilians. Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by treaty."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article325757.ece
http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/10/stories/2005111006541600.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051108&articleId=1213
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm
PDF with photos:
http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0305/us_used_chemical_weapons_in_iraq.pdf

Most of the pics in the last link don't really look like burn victims to me. They look like decomposing corpses, the skin blackens like that within 3-4 days of death. I saw a documentary not too long ago about forensic scientists who had a "body farm" to study decomposing corpses, the data which is used in order to pinpoint the time of death when a body is found. I'm sure there's other examples on sites such as rotten.com or ogrish if you really need to see that sort of stuff.

It was widely reported at the time that Fallujah stunk w/ all the decomposing bodies lying around (and being picked at by dogs), it was several weeks before a comprehensive removal was possible.

Also, phosporous is not a chemical weapon, civilians have never been targeted in Iraq, and the US never signed the treaty banning their use. Civilians were given ample warning to get out, those that stayed did so at their own peril. Did civilians die in Fallujah? Yes. Were they the targets? No. And if some unfortunate terrorists did get bombed w/ phosphorous, well it sucks to be them.

 

[demon]

You can watch or download the graphic video here:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/default_02112005.asp


And another article on it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/7/11819/9522

 

[WildCat]

However, according to www.iraqbodycount.org, more than 30% of all civil deaths are caused by American soldiers.
Is it true?

" US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. "
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

From the site:

Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.

So more than 80% were adult males, and how do they define "children"? This number is way out of whack if there was random killing of civilians going on, and IBC does not list deaths of insurgents/terrorists for some reason. Could that reason be that they just add them to the "civilian" count, thus explaining how over 80% of the dead are adult males, and others classified as "children" actually 15, 16, 17 year old fighters?

 

[WildCat]

BTW, here's the body farm I wrote of. There are graphic images on that site, compare to the Fallujah bodies if you have the stomach.

 

[Cylinder]

However, according to www.iraqbodycount.org, more than 30% of all civil deaths are caused by American soldiers.
Is it true?

The problem with using that site to draw conclusions from is that they do not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant civilians - or civilians and insurgents or whatever other term you may prefer.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The problem with using that site to draw conclusions from is that they do not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant civilians - or civilians and insurgents or whatever other term you may prefer.

Well, since it is a war against terrorists, when they speak about " civilian " victims, I assume they are speking about non-combatant civilians, otherwise no need to differentiate

 

[Matteo Martini]

Civilians were given ample warning to get out, those that stayed did so at their own peril.

Do you have evidence for this?
Why should they have stayed in a dangerous place in danger of death if they could have avoided it?

 

[Matteo Martini]

From the site:
This number is way out of whack if there was random killing of civilians going on, and IBC does not list deaths of insurgents/terrorists for some reason. Could that reason be that they just add them to the "civilian" count,

Why would they on purpose deceive the public and add deaths of insurgents/terrorists to the "civilian" count?

To discredit the Bush administration?

 

[The Fool]

I hated the stuff. The grenades were cylindrical, hard to grip and throw and it was impossible to throw one further than the white hot pellets came back...Mongrel things. They were issued to us as "smoke grenades" but they did not produce a gread amount of smoke. They proved Ideal for lobbing in some poor pricks hut.

 

[Earthborn]

From the site:
So more than 80% were adult males, and how do they define "children"?

Why don't you read the report (PDF) to find out?

IBC does not list deaths of insurgents/terrorists for some reason. Could that reason be that they just add them to the "civilian" count

No, the reason is that insurgents/terrorists are excluded from the civilian death count

The problem with using that site to draw conclusions from is that they do not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant civilians - or civilians and insurgents or whatever other term you may prefer.

They do differentiate between them, but they don't count the combatants unless they are killed or executed after capture. Read the report before judgement.

 

[WildCat]

Why don't you read the report (PDF) to find out?

Ah, so a 17 year old terrorist is counted as a child.

No, the reason is that insurgents/terrorists are excluded from the civilian death countThey do differentiate between them, but they don't count the combatants unless they are killed or executed after capture. Read the report before judgement.

They simply counted bodies in a morgue or hospital, making no attempt at all to differentiate combatant or civilian. All are counted as civilians. Which explains why:

Of 8,913 mortuary deaths, officials reported
that 90% were adult males, which is similar
to the proportion recorded by MoH.

90%? Quite a ratio if their only civilians!

 

[Ladewig]

. Every weapon used in warfare since Nagasaki can be called a chemical weapon.

.

I do not understand your position on this point. Would you elaborate?

 

[Mycroft]

I do not understand your position on this point. Would you elaborate?

Bullets are "chemically propelled missiles", for example.

 

[Mycroft]

I hated the stuff. The grenades were cylindrical, hard to grip and throw and it was impossible to throw one further than the white hot pellets came back...Mongrel things. They were issued to us as "smoke grenades" but they did not produce a gread amount of smoke. They proved Ideal for lobbing in some poor pricks hut.

Would you describe your actions in Vietnam as "war crimes"?

 

[Ed]

Isn't an insurgent or terrorist a civilion pretty much by definition?

 

[gtc]

I hated the stuff. The grenades were cylindrical, hard to grip and throw and it was impossible to throw one further than the white hot pellets came back...Mongrel things. They were issued to us as "smoke grenades" but they did not produce a gread amount of smoke. They proved Ideal for lobbing in some poor pricks hut.

Some sites mention an effect of these weapons was to burn the skin without burning the clothes. Others dispute the possibility of this happening. Did you notice anything either way

 

[Earthborn]

Ah, so a 17 year old terrorist is counted as a child.

Yes, but not as a civilian and is therefore excluded from the total deathtoll.

They simply counted bodies in a morgue or hospital, making no attempt at all to differentiate combatant or civilian. All are counted as civilians.

Untrue. They count the deathtoll as reported in the media, from verifiable events and only count those who are reported to be civilian.

Even if they were counting terrorists as civilians (which they aren't) the terrorists would be only a small fraction of the total number as terrorist attacks generally kill a lot more non-terrorist civilians than terrorists.

90%? Quite a ratio if their only civilians!

There may be a perfectly good explanation for this. Just read this statement: "Although ten times more adult males were killed than adult females, nearly one quarter of child and infant or baby deaths are females. This may be because young girls, like young boys, are more likely to be outside the home and so less protected from crossfire."

You can deduce from this that they assume that women are much less likely to be killed in shootings because they are less likely to be outside the house. Not an unreasonable assumption for an Islamic country, IMHO.