Iraq probes white phosphorous use

[Casanova]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq has launched an investigation into allegations -- denied by the Pentagon -- that U.S. soldiers aimed artillery rounds of flammable white phosphorous at civilians.


*shake head on how low things are getting*

video

javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2005/11/16/jm.phosphorous.response.cnn');


.S. military officials confirmed Wednesday that its troops used white phosphorous during an offensive to rid Falluja of insurgents last November, but the officials denied an Italian documentary allegation that the weapon was aimed at civilians. (Full story)

The documentary, on Italy's state-run RAI24 television news channel, showed what it claimed were badly burned victims.

A protocol to an accord on conventional weapons that came into force in 1983 forbids the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, Reuters reported.

Pentagon and military officials told CNN that white phosphorous was used in Falluja as a smoke screen to hide advancing U.S. troops as well as to target insurgents in trenches and "spider holes."

In an article in the March-April issue of Field Artillery magazine, soldiers said the white phosphorous was used to flush out insurgents so U.S. forces could target them with high explosives.

Pentagon officials said white phosphorous is a conventional weapon and is used for several purposes -- from creating smoke screens to marking targets -- and that it can be used against enemy combatants.

The Pentagon says the military use of white phosphorous is not illegal and that it is not considered a chemical weapon.

In 2004, the State Department said the United States had not used white phosphorous against enemy forces in the November offensive. Earlier this month, the department said that statement was incorrect.

"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using 'outlawed' weapons in Falluja," the department said.

"The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Falluja or anywhere else in Iraq."

The 1993 protocol also bans their use against military targets near concentrations of civilians, except when they are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties, Reuters reported.

However, while the U.S. signed the overall accord, it did not ratify the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.

The United Nations issued a muted reaction on Thursday. Marie Okabe, deputy spokeswoman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told a news briefing: "I just have two points on that issue. We are aware of the reported use of white phosphorous in Fallujah last year and are concerned about its possible effects on the local civilian population.

[Marc7]

talk about hypocrisy,,,


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875730,00.html

Propaganda nightmare of chemical hypocrisy
By Bronwen Maddox



HOW damaged is the US by the row over its use of white phosphorus in Fallujah last year? On the facts available now, it is within the letter of the law, even though it has not signed the most relevant protocol on the use of the weapon.
But that assertion depends on the US claim that there were few civilians left in Fallujah by the time the assault began last November. There is strong evidence to support the US position. But conflicting reports, inevitable in the circumstances, leave room for debate, and even more for rumour.



Even if the US is right on the legality, there is no question that it has inflicted a serious propaganda blow on itself. No matter the technical explanations of how useful the chemical is in flushing out insurgents from cellars. In using a weapon notorious in Vietnam, with effects on the human body straight from a science fiction film, it has given a gift to its enemies. It is now loudly accused of hypocrisy: justifying the war partly by Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, but then using particularly nasty ones itself.

Worse: the muddle of official denials, followed by an admission of use (in a limited sense), has fuelled those who disbelieve every American assertion.

[Feneant]

US answer : 'We were just trying to make some lights, it's not our fault there was a city under it!'.

There is a video somewhere on this... they talk about how they found people dead in bed, disfigured/melted while their cloth are still intact.