Phosphorous in Fallujah (video)

[gemini 0]

Quote

That's fine. We should stop calling it that when other people use it, then.

Good idea Bill!

Blue skies,

Jim

[Darius11 12]

Wow I have been reading this thread and I am so astonished. We have a double standard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. We like to change our minds a lot it seems. It is WMD when Iraq has it but not so bad when we use it.

When does it get too much?
I mean do the people who say shit like that ever look at them selves and just think wow I am full of it or are they blind enough to actually believe the carp that comes out of there mouths.

How many times can you contradict your self and still think you’re not a sheep?
How many accusations are going to be proven wrong until the blind will see?



Edit to add: not diracted at you Enrique just the Mentally blind

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[gemini 0]

Wow! I didn't know the people at the White House who called WP a WMD when Saddam used it were the same people at dz.com who now say it isn't a WMD. Damn are the skydivers too!

Blue skies,

Jim

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Wow! I didn't know the people at the White House who called WP a WMD when Saddam used it were the same people at dz.com who now say it isn't a WMD. Damn are the skydivers too!

Don't know if they are. All I know is that they seem to believe what they are told to believe no matter what the facts seem to be (not to mention we change the facts when we want)
The double standard is sickening.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

I Dunno. As I posted a few pages back, the Pentagon concluded in its 1995 report entitled "Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical Weapons by Iraq" that Iraq was using it illegally as a chemical weapon when it fired WP at "rebel forces".

I can only recall references to the in vivo testing of “phosgene” by Saddam and his regime. Please direct me to a source which verifies the claim that Pentagon or Administration personnel identified “white phosphorous” as a WMD.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[gemini 0]

Strange. I though to have a double standard you had to make a statement one day, and the opposite or contradicting statement later. If the same people aren't making both statements how is there a contradiction?

You're not lumping all Republicans into the same bucket are you? Even the Democrats have different levels of conservatives, middle of the roaders, and liberals. Why wouldn't the Republicans be made up of a cross section of society even with a conservative majority in their party?

Who are these people who are contradicting themselves specifically?

Blue skies,

Jim

[Darius11 12]

I am sorry I thought made that clear.

The people who said, "Oh shit look Iraq has White Phosphorous those bastards were making WMD. Good thing we invaded" and now are saying "White Phosphorous those are just for setting things on fire and stuff and not really bad way to die I mean when you die you die who cares how you die"


Another way to put it people who have double standards Them.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[gemini 0]

Quote

Another way to put it people who have double standards Them.

I'm so confused! I've been trying to find out who Them are for years. Them bastards been causing all kinds of trouble and always get away with it.

Blue skies,

Jim

[wesclimb 0]

Its not the weapon but the way it was used. If Saddam would have used it against enemy combatant's no one would have blinked an eye. He used it against women and children. There have been no such claims against US Forces. All the people in the picture's, if they were even killed by the action shown in the video were enemy combatant's. That is why they are wearing uniforms and military hardwear.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

The people who said, "Oh shit look Iraq has White Phosphorous those bastards were making WMD. Good thing we invaded"

I don't believe that any officials ever said as much. My recollection is that the references were to Saddam's use of phosgene, not white phosphorous. Please see my immediate posting above.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[billvon 3,107]

>I don't believe that any officials ever said as much.

From a Pentagon intelligence document, discussing Saddam's usage of chemical weapons (specifically white phosphorous) against insurgents:

---------------------------
IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL

Filename:22431050.91r
PATHFINDER RECORD NUMBER: 16134
. . .
CONTROLS
SECTION 001 OF 002

SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 243 1050 91


/*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/
BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E

COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR).

SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES
(U)

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------------------------------

DOI: (U) 910300.

REQS: (U) T-8C2-2650-01-90.

SOURCE: [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]



SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE
IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS --
A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- 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. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE
THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
(U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON
ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND
DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE
TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO
THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS
ALONG
THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN
THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER,
AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND
REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN
ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND
SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI
AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI
BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD
BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO
FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN
NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL
TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF
HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF
KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM
HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT
WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH
AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS
AND
REVOLVERS.
D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM
U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO
RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING
"DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA.
KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE
COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST
IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF
IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS
THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER
INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL
AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE
AREA.
2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES
ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT.
4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD
ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED
ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY.

//IPSP: (U) PGW 2650//.
//COMSOBJ: (U) 211//.
ADMIN PROJ: (U) 252132.
INSTR: (U) US NO.
PREP: (U) 500TH MI BDE.
ACQ: (U) TOKYO, JAPAN (910409).
DISSEM: (U) FIELD: NONE.
WARNING: (U) REPORT CLASSIFIED

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Before I joined this thread I’d already reviewed what you posted. Unfortunately I’ve only been able to locate the “report” at various unofficial websites and, yes, I have tried to retrieve it from official sources utilizing my legal and government research tools which in the past have been reliable. I did not succeed at locating an official version of the report, hence my request, above, to provide an original source so I can pull it.

Even assuming the report was disseminated through an official source it’s likely the person who drafted it made a simple mistake by confusing phosgene (which tests and witness testimony suggest Saddam did possess and weaponize) with white phosphorous (which virtually every military worldwide, including Saddam’s former military, has possessed and used for its screening and incendiary effects).

If you read the document you are citing it’s obvious that irrespective of which of the two chemical substances Saddam actually used on the Kurds, either white phosphorous or phosgene (it's possible that both were used at different times and places), it was employed in the open air on mass concentrations of people. Under these conditions white phosphorous per se does not have a toxic lethal effect on human beings and therefore does not qualify as being a WMD pursuant to most authoritative definitions, thus springs my atypical curiosity concerning the authenticity of the report.

In addition I am not aware that any poster here has cited to an authority for the proposition the W. Bush Administration relied on the report as a justification to invade in Spring 2003.

Please provide a source that will allow me to confirm the report originated from an official government source. And if I am able to find an official version due to my own efforts I will admit it here. That, and I'll blame my staffers. Ditto in respect of support from an official source which shows the current Administration relied on the report in its decision-making (or even its propaganda).


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

oops

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Toxic isn't a black/white scenario, its a sliding scale.

I know, but I was hoping he'd admit to that!

Everything is ok in moderation! Well, ok, not everything... STD's aren't ok in moderation...

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 3,107]

>I did not succeed at locating an official version of the report, hence
>my request, above, to provide an original source so I can pull it.

Sorry, I forgot to provide that link above:

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

>I am not aware that any poster here has cited to an authority for the
> proposition the W. Bush Administration relied on the report as a
> justification to invade in Spring 2003.

Hmm. I saw several posters use the "but he used chemical weapons against his own people!" justification several times. As this report alleges chemical weapons usage against his own people, it's hard to see how you'd exclude it.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

in high school by pouring a bit of moderately high-molarity hydrochloric acid into my bare hand

Ha!!! I thought I was the only one dumb enough to do something like that!!!! It really did feel soapy as it ate away my flesh!

J

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[jeiber 0]

Quote

just cause harm or incapacitate through a chemical process

So tear gas and pepper spray are WMD's?!?!

Quote

while you cough up your guts (as that's all that is required) then there's really little point continuing the discussion

Ok, I'm filing a law suit against the Army. They made me breath CS tear gas, and it made me cough like hell, slobbering and snotting all over myself... I was definitely incapacitated.

Tear gas is now a WMD!!!!!

J

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

Sorry, I forgot to provide that link above:

That's official enough for my purposes, I admit the report originates from an official source. Thank you.

Quote

it's hard to see how you'd exclude it

Absolutely I would exclude it from my decision tree. It's widely accepted that Saddam used actual WMD nerve agents against the Kurds. If this is your view white phosphorous doesn't even make it onto your radar scope because it isn't a true "chemical weapon" employed for its mass toxic effects on human beings. That's what the nerve agents are intended for. White phosphorous is intended to burn, mark and cause the target to panic and reveal itself.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[billvon 3,107]

>If this is your view white phosphorous doesn't even make it onto
>your radar scope because it isn't a true "chemical weapon" employed
>for its mass toxic effects on human beings.

Again, that's fine. But I have a very strong feeling that if you said any such thing in January of 2003 on this board you would have been attacked as a Saddam loving, America-hating terrorist. "Oh, so you're defending Saddam burning people to death? Let's see if YOU get your arm burned off, then claim your buddy Saddam isn't using chemical weapons!" I fear that we were treating its "chemicalness" differently depending on whether we need that specific propaganda.

But that's water under the bridge. If it's not to be treated as a chemical weapon in the future, I hope we remain consistent in that definition. I also hope that it is NOT used in the future against people, as being burned to death (by any means) is not a good thing no matter who is doing the burning.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

I also hope that it is NOT used in the future against people, as being burned to death (by any means) is not a good thing no matter who is doing the burning.

Nor is being shredded but temporarily alive due to having absorbed high speed metal fragments a good thing, unless you're the soldier or insurgent doing this to the other guy so that you and yours can remain alive to fight another day. Then WP becomes a useful tool in your kitbox and you'll find a way to get your hands on it or some equivalent substitute.

I wonder why there hasn't been so much of a fuss made about the thermobaric weapons the U.S. and British are using in Afghanistan and Iraq from time to time, or about the Russians' use of thermobaric weapons in Chechnya when it suits them.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

in high school by pouring a bit of moderately high-molarity hydrochloric acid into my bare hand

Ha!!! I thought I was the only one dumb enough to do something like that!!!! It really did feel soapy as it ate away my flesh!

WOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Wow! I didn't know the people at the White House who called WP a WMD when Saddam used it were the same people at dz.com who now say it isn't a WMD. Damn are the skydivers too!

OK, now I'm lost. Is the discussion about chemical weapons or about WMD (weapons of mass destruction)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Should law enforcement be able to, in the situation in which you've been arrested for matching the description in a hit-and-run, kick you around a bit until you confess you did it?

No...but we're not running the Hanoi Hilton here. I don't think anyone is beating confessions out of anyone. If there's any legitimate arm twisting, it's done to get much needed intel, something I have no problem with (and remember, I defined what I mean by arm twisting). If someone gets beat for a false confession or just for the hell of it, that's wrong, no matter who's getting beat or who's doing the beating.

Quote

Ever seen a bar fight first hand? I can tell you that most patrons in most bars I've been to (of which there are many, especially taking into account that I don't drink at all) are nowhere near that hammered. And none of the bar fights which I've witnessed (same disclaimer goes) have involved someone that trashed. It's usually a few hits that quickly turns into a grapple, takedown, then rolling about bloodying each other until it gets broken up.

A bit different than a detainee restrained in a chair, hmm?

What kind of lame ass bars do you frequent! And how many detainees are strapped to chairs and beaten by US military personnel? I'm sure some idiots have done it, but it's certainly not rampant among military members nor tolerated.

Quote

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHH!

Uh, I was responding to your new description of a bar fight, considering that was the sub-topic...so woosh right back at you.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

No...but we're not running the Hanoi Hilton here. I don't think anyone is beating confessions out of anyone.

Problem is, we don't know. What we do know is that people (Cheney, et al) are running big-time interference, which raises suspicions.

Quote

If there's any legitimate arm twisting, it's done to get much needed intel, something I have no problem with (and remember, I defined what I mean by arm twisting).

Well, that's just it: Who defines legitimate? Where's the oversight? What happens when it's just vocal dissidents having their arms twisted? Or just plain bystanders?

And there's no need to twist arms; we have an arsenal of legal and internationally accepted interrogation methods at our disposal that have proven effective.

There's something more to this whole debacle than just intelligence gathering.

Quote

If someone gets beat for a false confession or just for the hell of it, that's wrong, no matter who's getting beat or who's doing the beating.

Awesome. We're on the same page there. Again, where's the oversight? If treating the detainees according to international standards is not made a priority, is not enforced, and/or is not externally overseen, shit will go down. Period.

We're deviating... this piece of tangent began with your stating this:

Quote

"getting kicked around a bit" does not mean torture. It's not torture to slap some shitbag around. Do you consider a little roughing around, a jab here and there torture? I don't think so. If that's what you do think, then by your definition everyone who's gotten in a fist fight, a bar fight, etc. has tortured someone. Give me a break.

I disputed the moral nature of your shitbag-kicked-around comment. How do we know they're shitbags? For what should they be kicked around? It seems you narrowed it down to resistance (with which I agree) or for intel purposes (which I disputed above).

I also disputed the bar fight analogy, as it's a much, much different scenario than a detainee being kicked around by guards or other staff.

Did we miss anything?

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Well, that's just it: Who defines legitimate? Where's the oversight? What happens when it's just vocal dissidents having their arms twisted? Or just plain bystanders?

The govt/intl community define legitimate, the officers provide oversight. Now of course I agree that this is the perfect scenario and people can get out of hand. However, some people are getting up in arms saying that the US military is torturing people back and forth. That's just not happening. There are some bad apples, but in general, no we don't do that. (Not saying you're one of those people). Hopefully the MPs and skycops are making good judgements on who is a bystander and who is criminal.

Quote

And there's no need to twist arms; we have an arsenal of legal and internationally accepted interrogation methods at our disposal that have proven effective.

The arsenal of legal methods does not usually work in a time sensitive case. Even if it's an interrogation in the back of a house, if some guy knows where the IED is planted that will surely kill the next squad of Marines to walk by, then yeah, there's no problem twisting the location out of the guy to save some buddies (assuming he doesn't tell you when given the chance). Many times, no politically correct/you can have a lawyer interrogation is going to work in situtations like that.

Quote

How do we know they're shitbags?

The proven ones, such as Zarqawi. That guy gets captured...boo hoo if his jaw gets dislocated.

Quote

or for intel purposes (which I disputed above)

how bout the intel situation above? Really want to not do anything to the guy keeping his mouth shut when a bunch of your friends are running out of time? Guess you gotta be in that situation to understand sometimes.

[billvon 3,107]

>if some guy knows where the IED is planted that will surely kill the
>next squad of Marines to walk by, then yeah, there's no problem
> twisting the location out of the guy to save some buddies . . .

Actually, there is. It's well documented that torture produces bad results. Rather than get good info, you will get whatever info makes you stop. So instead of looking for the IED and disarming it, you're torturing a guy who doesn't know exactly where it is into giving you a false answer so you will stop breaking his ribs.

End result of torture: dead Marines. Aside from the moral issues, that's the real practical issue. Torture doesn't work.