white phosphorus
November 16, 2005 – 7:28 pmso did the US troops in Iraq use chemical weapons or not? a lot of fuss has been erupting - ever since this Italian documentary came out and accused the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in Falluja..
The claims were initially dismissed of course with references to ‘incendiary’ weapons..” - ( well yes i daresay they’re all ‘incendiary’ - if they blow up that is!)
Now they’ve said well - it isn’t quite a ‘chemical weapon’ and its classified as a ‘certain conventional weapon’ and of course since the US hadn’t signed up to the ‘Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’..( which would have prohibited the use of these weapons on a civilian population) so what can you say?
But anyway- so this is what somone or other has said: ( from the latest guardian story on this)
“Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said the substance, which can be used to lay smokescreens but burns down to the bone in contact with skin, was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.”
So they have admitted to using white phosphorus, but not to using ‘chemical weapons’.
so is everything alright in the world tonight..?
2 Responses to “white phosphorus”
The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans, not against humans. See for yourself:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument
Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is
already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of especial import except to say that we aren’t bound by it expressly.
White Phosphorus is not banned.
It also isn’t a chemical weapon. We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines chemical weapons. See here:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
So it isn’t a chemical weapon and it isn’t banned.
Indiscriminate use is. The stories circulating do not support that
contention. See here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10…
Cpl. Bogert received the coordinates for the targets and recorded them on a map. This is proper procedure. He’s receiving coordinates from a Forward Observer, indirect fire weapons never see their targets, the FOs do. The coordinates are plotted so that it is known what was ordered where. There is also a verification that takes place in the call for indirect fire to avoid problems with numerical transposition or other mistakes.
By RTO Trainer on Nov 16, 2005
sure. the devil is always in the detail! otherwise any idiot who’s ever been in a science class would say if its a chemical and used as a weapon..but no! that would be ‘common sense’.
and again - who’s a ‘civilian’ and who’s an ‘enemy combatant’ ..very handy for those in authority i say.
By sonia on Nov 17, 2005