US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
While we're on the subject, the U.S. military has had to admit, despite a previous denial, that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

What the hell are we doing?

Torture is always bad and it does seem that several high ranking people in the chain of command have been giving a wink and a nod to it. That said even the BBC has said White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon; it is nasty **** which starts fires which are hard to put out but calling phosphorous a "chemical weapon" is like calling gunpowder a chemical weapon.

These are incendiary weapons like napalm. Napalm is nothing more then the same petroleum jelly you use to bugger your girlfriend with mixed with gasoline while phosphorous is a naturally occurring compound. Sure, I wouldn't want to be hit with either one but that doesn't make them chemical weapons nor any worse the chemical composition of traditional high explosives. Anyone pushing to have either of those called a chemical weapon is so deeply biased as to be laughable.

[Dinner]

A legit case can be made that incindiaries are inhumane and should be banned but that doesn't mean they are chemical weapons.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nobody said it was.

You insinuated it when comparing American use of WP to Saddam's use of chemicals, which he used as area weapons against civies.

Obviously, the U.S. military doesn't feel that such weapons are o.k. to use, hence the their self-ban of using napalm.

If WP is so bad in the way it is used, why no self ban on that?

That the US declines to use napalm means nothing in this, aside from the fact that the US government and forces are capable of restraining themselves.

There's not much difference between WP and napalm in its effect.

Napalm is air dropped. It is indescriminate, and it necessarily affects a wide area, civies be damned.

WP can be delivered by arty (that would not be so good) or it can be direct fired from a gun, or it can be lobbed in a grenade.

In neither of the cases that the US may use the weapon (direct fire or grenade) is it in any way indescriminate in it's use.

Let us know when you have a case of a barrage of WP fired by artillery. That would be something to pay attention to. A marine lobbing a grenade is not.

Did we also fail to note that Fallujah was a city full of innocent civilians? In fact, the news reports from RAI that sparked the outrage in Italy indicated evidence for large civilian casualties due to WP:

I don't give a **** why a bunch of ultra-liberals get their panties in a bunch when whipped up by media reports that say a weapon is banned, when it is not.

Unless you can show me intentional use of WP against civilian targets, the fact that some people rioted against the war (like many others have on general principle) means less than nothing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I believe both you and NYE are misconstruing my position on this.

Why the question about phosgene?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

WP is a very nasty, indiscriminate weapon that most countries (i.e., all those who signed Protocol III of the Geneva Convention) think should be prohibited.

How could anyone who has read the protocol think that? It obviously tries to prohibit the use of incendiaries on civilians, not their use in general.

We're talking about the use in civilian areas, which is prohibited under that protocol. Hence the citation from the Italian media source.

Also note that Protocol III is part of the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons". WP is covered under that convention because it is a conventional weapon, not a chemical weapon.

As the professor mentioned in the article, and I agree with, that WP isn't defined as a chemical weapon in the GC becomes a mere technicality when it is employed as a weapon against people.

[Drake Tungsten]

As the professor mentioned in the article, and I agree with, that WP isn't defined as a chemical weapon in the GC becomes a mere technicality when it is employed as a weapon against people.

OK...

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't wait until someone exposes the fact that America has used tons of trinitrotoluene in Iraq, a "chemical weapon" that has been used extensively as a weapon against people, even in urban areas.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You insinuated it when comparing American use of WP to Saddam's use of chemicals, which he used as area weapons against civies.

Since it has been noted that the difference between WP and chemical agents is a technicality (you even quoted that passage yourself), and the issue here is that there is evidence that civilians were affected by it, I don't think it's a completely irrelevant comparison.

If WP is so bad in the way it is used, why no self ban on that?

Probably because the general public hasn't, to date, known much about WP, but thanks to Vietnam it knows about napalm and was rightfully horrified. I'm guessing the military's lying about WP now was in anticipation of such public horror, hmm?

That the US declines to use napalm means nothing in this, aside from the fact that the US government and forces are capable of restraining themselves.

Doesn't this go to my point? Why is restraint with WP (i.e., not tossing it around civilian areas) not unreasonable?

Napalm is air dropped. It is indescriminate, and it necessarily affects a wide area, civies be damned.

WP can be delivered by arty (that would not be so good) or it can be direct fired from a gun, or it can be lobbed in a grenade.

Ah. So Mustard gas and other vesicants that aren't air dropped (hell, they used open containers in WWI, and it's never been very effective) would then be ok? Keep in mind the physical effects of vesicants (burning) is much less severe than WP, and yet they are banned.

I don't give a **** why a bunch of ultra-liberals get their panties in a bunch when whipped up by media reports that say a weapon is banned, when it is not.

Unless you can show me intentional use of WP against civilian targets, the fact that some people rioted against the war (like many others have on general principle) means less than nothing.

Use in civilian areas is banned, the damned UK officer YOU quoted even said so. Lo and behold, we have graphic evidence of scores of civilians being hit by it. THAT'S the real issue, not semantics over what kind of weapon it is.

I love all this dancing by war apologists. Fight over labels to obscure the real issue at hand.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't wait until someone exposes the fact that America has used tons of trinitrotoluene in Iraq, a "chemical weapon" that has been used extensively as a weapon against people, even in urban areas.

I think my 4th grade science teacher used that joke once.

[SlowwHand]

Drake, cite a reference, or it can be considered opinion.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think my 4th grade science teacher used that joke once.

Your 4th grade science teacher foresaw the Iraq war? Or are you saying that you're in 4th grade now? Frankly, I find the latter to be the more believable of the two options...

Drake, cite a reference, or it can be considered opinion.

[Ted Striker]

Your joke only works on 3rd graders, at best, apparently.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Since it has been noted that the difference between WP and chemical agents is a technicality (you even quoted that passage yourself), and the issue here is that there is evidence that civilians were affected by it, I don't think it's a completely irrelevant comparison.

No. One twit showed you what you think is a technicality.

There is a very large difference between clouds of toxic gas spreading over an area, and WP fired into a bunker (which is very unpleasant for those inside the bunker, but no more so than a hit by 150mm into a vulnerable spot; they are all dead) or WP deposited as a smoke screen that kills no one.

Can you see the difference between poison gas and smoke?

Probably because the general public hasn't, to date, known much about WP, but thanks to Vietnam it knows about napalm and was rightfully horrified. I'm guessing the military's lying about WP now was in anticipation of such public horror, hmm?

Or, someone in the Pentagon got things screwed up? Nah, that's never happened before. That couldn;t be it.

Or, there is no reason for a society that expects to have to fight wars to unneccessarily tie the hands of its soldiers behind their backs and deprive them of a tool that could lead to many of them surviving who otherwise would not.

Doesn't this go to my point? Why is restraint with WP (i.e., not tossing it around civilian areas) not unreasonable?

Properlly used, it is no more dangerous to civies than a concussion grenade. It is significantly less lethal than artillery in a barrage.

Why allow artillery or aerial bombardment on areas where civies live? Because the enemy soldiers and instalations are also there?

Ah. So Mustard gas and other vesicants that aren't air dropped (hell, they used open containers in WWI, and it's never been very effective) would then be ok?

No? because they are area weapons and are indescriminate in who they effect?

Keep in mind the physical effects of vesicants (burning) is much less severe than WP, and yet they are banned.

WP fired direct, or lobbed, are directed at enemy soldiers, not civies. You can't do that with gas.

Use in civilian areas is banned, the damned UK officer YOU quoted even said so. Lo and behold, we have graphic evidence of scores of civilians being hit by it. THAT'S the real issue, not semantics over what kind of weapon it is.

And you continue to ignore linked facts, preferring a hack being quoted, why?

Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians.

What part of that is hard for you to grasp that shooting at soldiers with the weapon in a city is OK, but spraying the place is not?

I love all this dancing by war apologists. Fight over labels to obscure the real issue at hand.

I love the kvetching and hand wringing by people who have no clue what they are talking about, and wouldn't know the issue if it stood up, took slow aim, and shot them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There is a very large difference between clouds of toxic gas spreading over an area, and WP fired into a bunker (which is very unpleasant for those inside the bunker, but no more so than a hit by 150mm into a vulnerable spot; they are all dead) or WP deposited as a smoke screen that kills no one.


Can you see the difference between poison gas and smoke?

That's gotta be the most disingenuous discription of WP I've heard. Just "smoke?" The issue here isn't WP used as a smokescreen, so that's a big fat strawman on your part, and I'll thank you to dispense with it.

The issue is WP as a weapon, and WP being used in such a manner in Fallujah that scores of civilians ended up dead because of it.

Or, someone in the Pentagon got things screwed up? Nah, that's never happened before. That couldn;t be it.

You'd have me believe that it was an honest mistake that someone at the Pentagon said the military hadn't used something that most military personnel knew was being used? Even Brit military personnel? Got a bridge for you in Brooklyn...

Or, there is no reason for a society that expects to have to fight wars to unneccessarily tie the hands of its soldiers behind their backs and deprive them of a tool that could lead to many of them surviving who otherwise would not.

So why not use napalm? And poison gas? Hey, any means necessary, right? That's the logic here.

Properlly used, it is no more dangerous to civies than a concussion grenade. It is significantly less lethal than artillery in a barrage.

When it's used in bombs as an incendiary device, as it was here, and it apparently kills many of those civies, would that be "proper use" to you?

Why allow artillery or aerial bombardment on areas where civies live? Because the enemy soldiers and instalations are also there?

Do we allow indiscriminate arial bombardment of civilian areas? Even if we do, should we? Frankly, I say no, particularly in a situation like Fallujah.

Ah. So Mustard gas and other vesicants that aren't air dropped (hell, they used open containers in WWI, and it's never been very effective) would then be ok?

No? because they are area weapons and are indescriminate in who they effect?

So how about those dead civies in Fallujah, eh? What difference does it make if the end result is still dead civilians, especially when, as noted, there are several chemical weapons banned that are non-lethal and don't have wide areas of effect (due to ineffectual methods of spreading them)?

WP fired direct, or lobbed, are directed at enemy soldiers, not civies. You can't do that with gas.

Yet here it's through bombs with a wide enough area of effect to apparently kills lots of civilians. What difference is there, again?

And you continue to ignore linked facts, preferring a hack being quoted, why?

Why not quote the actual text of the treaty, not a dubious summary? Or is it just you prefer your hacks to be the journalists?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Now according to you WP is so harmless to civilians that unless they are deliberately targeted, no problem. So I ask again, what about all those dead civilians?

What part of that is hard for you to grasp that shooting at soldiers with the weapon in a city is OK, but spraying the place is not?

Funny, I'd say it's you having a hard time grasping some basic facts here. Namely that WP bombs don't just magically effect only enemy combatants when detonated in civilian areas.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't know the issue if it went off like, well, a bomb next to you, eh?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why the question about phosgene?

Because your argument applies equally well to phosgene, assuming it was used in an area which was only occupied by armed opposition.