More US war crimes

[gewehr_3]

READ it is sickening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

[violencia.Proletariat]

according to the article white phosphorous isnt against the law.

[gewehr_3]

It should be, it burns pretty much like napalm (which IS against the law) but much hotter

[Guerrilla22]

That's the stuff they use for "flashbang" greanades, only they're apparently using it to burn people alive.

[DisIllusion]

So much for the Geneva Convention.

[Creature]

But when did America ever abide by international law.

[violencia.Proletariat]

its not against the law! you cant say they broke a law when it isnt illegal. now its fine to criticize using this stuff, which i do, but you cant have an arguement that isnt true.

[bolshevik butcher]

So america goes into iraq looking for chemical weapons and what do they wind up using?

That's pretty typical fo uncle sam really. And legal or not think about the morals of burning people alive using phosphorus?

[Dark Exodus]

You try and debate this outside of here you will get torn to shreds.

This stuff is not against any laws and is not used as a direct weapon, as far as I know its used for screening and to flush fighters out of areas where they are dug-in, this prevents the need to send in soldiers to clear it and reduces the risk of casualties on the American side.


That's pretty typical fo uncle sam really. And legal or not think about the morals of burning people alive using phosphorus?

Yeah, much better and more morale to shoot holes in them. :rolleyes:

- - -

There are plenty of other US war crimes, I am sure, but this is not one of them.

[DisIllusion]

I don't know, putting holes in people with lead is already bad enough to me, but melting their skin off with some crazy ass chemical used to blind people is where I draw the line.

[dso79]

This stuff is not against any laws and is not used as a direct weapon, as far as I know its used for screening and to flush fighters out of areas where they are dug-in

The fact that the US used it to flush out enemy fighters means that they did use it as a direct weapon. The US have already admitted this; the question is whether it was against the law. There has been a lot of debate on this; some say that it’s a chemical weapon when used against people and therefore contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, while others say that its use is not prohibited because the burns it causes are thermic and not chemical.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1642575,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1642575,00.html)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11008.htm

However, the US used it in Falluja, which means that they did violate the Convention on Certain Weapons:


Perhaps of crucial importance to the Iraqi investigators, the treaty also restricts their use against military targets "inside a concentration of civilians except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...ticle327543.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327543.ece)

In Falluja military targets were not clearly separated from civilians and it’s very likely that civilians have fallen victim to WP.

[h&s]

According to a Ministry Of Defence (UK) spokesperson white phosphorus is not allowed to be used directly against enemy personel, but against enemy bases.
He said that using it against people constituted "unneccesary and superfluous sufferring", and denied its use in such situations.
Its almost certain though that many people have suffered, but then thats just war for you.... <_<

[Rockfan]

Bastards. The thing is they can argue that they were after insurgents as much as they like but the real question is how many civilians got caught in the cross-fire.

[Ownthink]

Legal to use as a light to illuminate.

Illegal to fry people alive with.

Guess what America used it for more?

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Didn&#39;t you guys know? The &#39;coalition&#39; have this magic white phosphorus which only burns &#39;terrorists&#39; but bathes civilians in a warm soothing freedom loving glow&#33;


its not against the law&#33; you cant say they broke a law when it isnt illegal. now its fine to criticize using this stuff, which i do, but you cant have an arguement that isnt true.

The use of white phospohorous contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes". The Italian documentary "Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre" shows clearly that Iraqi civilians (including children and women) have been killed by horrible burns caused by white phosphorous.

Also, see The Independent: &#39;I treated people who had their skin melted&#39; (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article327136.ece)

It can be "legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. " (Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1642831,00.html)) However it "becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people" and this is clearly the case.


There are plenty of other US war crimes, I am sure, but this is not one of them.

The bombardment of a large city still populated by tens of thousands of innocent civilians (clinging to their homes and their meager material possessions) with white phosphorous, is a terrible crime that cannot be forgotten nor forgiven.


So america goes into iraq looking for chemical weapons and what do they wind up using?

You have yet to learn the rules. You see, it is NOT OK when Saddam uses chemical weapons against Iraqis.. but it IS OK when American imperialists use chemical weapons against Iraqis because we are "noble liberators"&#33; (This equation works for torture too)